You should be embarrassed to be a cheerleader for George Osborne since he was the one who introduced this in the 2015 budget.
I told him enough times.
I'm certain had he remained Chancellor he would have ditched it.
Which aspect of the policy do you object to - the withdrawal of benefits for third child onwards, the exception for rape/coercive relationship, or the wording of the form to claim the exception?
Not the the first thing. It just seems cruel and hurtful to women to relive what must be the most awful moment in their life.
The alternative is obviously that people will lie about it. Personally I find politicians using this rare and emotive scenario to try to undermine the whole policy pretty unedifying.
I think when Labour do have an electable leader this is the sort of the thing that will come back and haunt the Tory party.
The basic policy will be quite popular, and most people (at least, people who are potential Tory voters) won't care about the ins and outs of an exception few people need to use.
Further to the last thread, as a novice on the french elections, what is it aboutu Melenchon that leads some to say were he to make the final two with Le Pen, that would open up a path (though still unlikely) for her to win?
I think private schools are edging very close to losing their charitable status.
Far too many of them are charging exorbitant fees that put them well out of the reach of their traditional middle-class supporters, and they risk becoming bastions of the super-rich.
Even the cheapest day schools now charge upwards of £15k a year, and you either need pre-tax salary wiggle room of about £30k to fund that, per child - i.e. you need to be close to a six figure salary - or to raid a meaty inheritance.
To be honest basic childcare sounds like it now costs about as much (adjusted for inflation) as my private school fees - which have gone through the roof since I attended. My old school now has better facilites than when I was there I think though. If I have a kid it'll be state + tutoring (Which I can do myself for maths)
I think I'll be doing the same.
Basic childcare should only be an issue from 6 months old to 5 years old, though. Once the child is in school, it ceases to become a major problem.
Having said that, I do think State schools should extend their hours from 3pm to 6pm, with after-school activities, as private schools do, to make full-time work feasible for all parents.
There speaks someone who hasn't had any kids yet!
You forget that the primary school day typically ends at 2.30-3.00pm....unless you are particularly lucky in having flexible jobs working from or close to home, I can assure you that childcare does not cease to be a "major problem" when your kids go to school, if both parents want to carry on working full time....and it certainly is a major problem when they are sick.
Yes, that's my point. State schools shouldn't end at 2.30-3pm.
You're living in fairyland if you think most state primary schools are ever going to remain open after 3pm late enough for parents to collect their kids after a normal working day. The teachers won't agree in a million years, even if they are given a commensurate pay rise to keep them in school an extra few hours (they won't be). Here in Sussex the threat is that the school day may be shortened further and perhaps even moved to a 4 day week due to funding cuts.
Another thing I meant to say in response to your original post was that expected parent engagement with the school in terms of attending parents meetings, reading sessions, activities etc - all slap bang in the middle of the working day - is absolutely relentless compared to when I was at school (I am 40).
There could be a snowball effect for Melenchon here - now that he is looking so close to overtaking Fillon, it will become the narrative and I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamon do even worse on the night, and the mini candidates lose their bounce, pushing Melenchon up to 19/20%.
Yes, although as a general rule any bounce a candidate gets from a debate tends to be temporary.
Still, that the official PS candidate could be on 9% is pretty staggering, however you look at it.
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
Further to the last thread, as a novice on the french elections, what is it aboutu Melenchon that leads some to say were he to make the final two with Le Pen, that would open up a path (though still unlikely) for her to win?
There could be a snowball effect for Melenchon here - now that he is looking so close to overtaking Fillon, it will become the narrative and I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamon do even worse on the night, and the mini candidates lose their bounce, pushing Melenchon up to 19/20%.
I've got a reasonably substantial position against Le Pen & an even larger one against Fillon, Melenchon-Fillon crossover in a couple of polls would be more than welcome.
Exhaustion of natural resources due to overpopulation is not a problem in this country. It makes sense to aim for a birthrate of 2.1-2.2 rather than the current 1.8-1.9.
The welfare reforms of the 2010-2015 administration have probably reduced incentives to bear additional children amongst the poorest.
Childcare costs, child benefit cuts and house prices are the main constraints for working couples and middle earners.
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Further to the last thread, as a novice on the french elections, what is it aboutu Melenchon that leads some to say were he to make the final two with Le Pen, that would open up a path (though still unlikely) for her to win?
The fact that he's a nutjob.
Not always a bar to public office, that. What about his nutjobedness is such that the French might overcome their habit of not transferring to FN in the second round?
Exhaustion of natural resources due to overpopulation is not a problem in this country. It makes sense to aim for a birthrate of 2.1-2.2 rather than the current 1.8-1.9.
Water in the South East is, I read, becoming a big problem. Apparently they cannot take much more out of the rivers without causing major damage and the aquifers will not cope with the projected increase in population. So your point may not hold everywhere.
There is also the problem of non-natural resources. I am thinking here of things like roads, sewage disposal, railways etc.. The railways are already stretched to breaking point, the roads are becoming more and more gummed up (e.g. getting round past Heathrow without hitting a major delay is becoming rarer and rarer, even the M23 is becoming choked) and so on.
Yet the policy is to keep increasing the population without the necessary concomitant investment in infrastructure.
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Exhaustion of natural resources due to overpopulation is not a problem in this country. It makes sense to aim for a birthrate of 2.1-2.2 rather than the current 1.8-1.9.
Water in the South East is, I read, becoming a big problem. Apparently they cannot take much more out of the rivers without causing major damage and the aquifers will not cope with the projected increase in population. So your point may not hold everywhere.
There is also the problem of non-natural resources. I am thinking here of things like roads, sewage disposal, railways etc.. The railways are already stretched to breaking point, the roads are becoming more and more gummed up (e.g. getting round past Heathrow without hitting a major delay is becoming rarer and rarer, even the M23 is becoming choked) and so on.
Yet the policy is to keep increasing the population without the necessary concomitant investment in infrastructure.
Or as I like to put it, building ever more boxes for people to live in without putting in the infrastructure and services they need.
I think private schools are edging very close to losing their charitable status.
To be honest basic childcare sounds like it now costs about as much (adjusted for inflation) as my private school fees - which have gone through the roof since I attended. My old school now has better facilites than when I was there I think though. If I have a kid it'll be state + tutoring (Which I can do myself for maths)
I think I'll be doing the same.
There speaks someone who hasn't had any kids yet!
You forget that the primary school day typically ends at 2.30-3.00pm....unless you are particularly lucky in having flexible jobs working from or close to home, I can assure you that childcare does not cease to be a "major problem" when your kids go to school, if both parents want to carry on working full time....and it certainly is a major problem when they are sick.
Yes, that's my point. State schools shouldn't end at 2.30-3pm.
You're living in fairyland if you think most state primary schools are ever going to remain open after 3pm late enough for parents to collect their kids after a normal working day. The teachers won't agree in a million years, even if they are given a commensurate pay rise to keep them in school an extra few hours (they won't be). Here in Sussex the threat is that the school day may be shortened further and perhaps even moved to a 4 day week due to funding cuts.
Another thing I meant to say in response to your original post was that expected parent engagement with the school in terms of attending parents meetings, reading sessions, activities etc - all slap bang in the middle of the working day - is absolutely relentless compared to when I was at school (I am 40).
My point is that state schools close too early for working parents. Whether or not a change to that is practicable is, of course, the next question, and no doubt it would be a challenge.
You see both teachers and funding as the obstacles. I was thinking of starting with a simple form of after-school club (within the same school) run for an extra three hours, possibly by outsiders in things like arts & crafts, PE, sports, or discovery activities, that would not require the primary school teachers to continue, unless they wished to opt into doing so for the extra pay.
I would be open to that being charged for at, say, £150 per week per child, with means-testing for the poorest.
You should be embarrassed to be a cheerleader for George Osborne since he was the one who introduced this in the 2015 budget.
I told him enough times.
I'm certain had he remained Chancellor he would have ditched it.
Which aspect of the policy do you object to - the withdrawal of benefits for third child onwards, the exception for rape/coercive relationship, or the wording of the form to claim the exception?
Not the the first thing. It just seems cruel and hurtful to women to relive what must be the most awful moment in their life.
The alternative is obviously that people will lie about it. Personally I find politicians using this rare and emotive scenario to try to undermine the whole policy pretty unedifying.
I think when Labour do have an electable leader this is the sort of the thing that will come back and haunt the Tory party.
I'm not so sure. Not having an exception at all would have been in that sort of territory. But tbh this looks like it's been implemented as reasonably as possible, and the underlying policy is popular. Though I do hope the civil service is up to making sure women only have to fill out this form once (and not, for example, every time they make a new claim).
I think private schools are edging very close to losing their charitable status.
Far too many of them are charging exorbitant fees that put them well out of the reach of their traditional middle-class supporters, and they risk becoming bastions of the super-rich.
Even the cheapest day schools now charge upwards of £15k a year, and you either need pre-tax salary wiggle room of about £30k to fund that, per child - i.e. you need to be close to a six figure salary - or to raid a meaty inheritance.
To be honest basic childcare sounds like it now costs about as much (adjusted for inflation) as my private school fees - which have gone through the roof since I attended. My old school now has better facilites than when I was there I think though. If I have a kid it'll be state + tutoring (Which I can do myself for maths)
I think I'll be doing the same.
Yes, that's my point. State schools shouldn't end at 2.30-3pm.
You're living in fairyland if you think most state primary schools are ever going to remain open after 3pm late enough for parents to collect their kids after a normal working day. The teachers won't agree in a million years, even if they are given a commensurate pay rise to keep them in school an extra few hours (they won't be). Here in Sussex the threat is that the school day may be shortened further and perhaps even moved to a 4 day week due to funding cuts.
Another thing I meant to say in response to your original post was that expected parent engagement with the school in terms of attending parents meetings, reading sessions, activities etc - all slap bang in the middle of the working day - is absolutely relentless compared to when I was at school (I am 40).
Teachers especially primary ones have it good , 25 hour week and at least 17 weeks holidays. No wonder they are mainly lefties, be tough if they ever ended up in the real world.
You should be embarrassed to be a cheerleader for George Osborne since he was the one who introduced this in the 2015 budget.
I told him enough times.
I'm certain had he remained Chancellor he would have ditched it.
Which aspect of the policy do you object to - the withdrawal of benefits for third child onwards, the exception for rape/coercive relationship, or the wording of the form to claim the exception?
I think there is a good argument to say the benefit is for the child and goes with the child, rather than the parent, and therefore it's irrelevant how many brothers and sisters he has.
If immigration is to go down substantially post-Brexit, parents are actually going to need incentives to have more kids.
Automation.
Automating manufacturing is one thing, but service industries? We're a ways off that happening in a serious fashion.
Limiting child benefit is a distraction in terms of welfare reform, tinkering at the edges. The big problem is end of life welfare.
There could be a snowball effect for Melenchon here - now that he is looking so close to overtaking Fillon, it will become the narrative and I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamon do even worse on the night, and the mini candidates lose their bounce, pushing Melenchon up to 19/20%.
This morning's Opinionway rolling poll gives it:
Le Pen 25% (-1) Macron 24% (NC) Fillon 20% (NC) Melenchon 16% (+1)
Two things about this poll
1. It has been consistently favourable to Fillon throughout, showing him about 2 points higher than most other polls.
2. It is a rolling poll over a three days cycle. Meaning that any daily changes are down to just a third of the voters used in the poll. Today's poll is the first poll that will have included some reaction from the tv debate. However the full reaction will not be seen until monday when all three days voting included in the poll will consist of post tv debate polling. With that in mind, assuming Melenchon has had a boost from the debate, I would expect further improvement from him in this poll over the next two polls.
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
It is plainly the case that Jewish organisations made deals with the regime that was savagely persecuting them in order to save as many of their people from such persecution. Where Ken Livingstone is being deliberately malicious, IMHO, is to argue that this somehow made such organisations complicit in the persecution of Jews, in order to help bring about the establishment of Israel.
Exhaustion of natural resources due to overpopulation is not a problem in this country. It makes sense to aim for a birthrate of 2.1-2.2 rather than the current 1.8-1.9.
The welfare reforms of the 2010-2015 administration have probably reduced incentives to bear additional children amongst the poorest.
Childcare costs, child benefit cuts and house prices are the main constraints for working couples and middle earners.
I might agree to the second paragraph but not the first. If the poorest in our society are reckoned to be those without work or income except from the state then the pressures on them not to breed seem non-existent, or at least grossly ineffective..
Not always a bar to public office, that. What about his nutjobedness is such that the French might overcome their habit of not transferring to FN in the second round?
Simply because he's so left-wing that people might think Le Pen is the lesser of the two evils. Think Farage vs Corbyn.
Though I do hope the civil service is up to making sure women only have to fill out this form once (and not, for example, every time they make a new claim).
Do we really want the government to create a need for a database of 'non-consensual' children?
A little OT (and apologies if this has been posted already), but the Remainer holy text, the FT, has an interesting take on the opposition to Mrs May's apparent softening around transition terms:
"Many Eurosceptic Tory MPs are sovereigntists who want to take back parliamentary control. Relatively few are driven by a desire to cut immigration drastically."
Suggests the PM might have an easier time keeping her party inside than has been supposed; and also that the FT are looking for a way to back down and come to an accommodation with the new order...
That depends on how the public react. Even many remainers wanted immigration reduced, and so far the Tories have gotten away with failing on the targets set. Will that continue to be the case or will the public get mad eventually?
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
+1
Sorry to read yesterday of your split with Labour. You were one of those members upon whom I felt a sane future rested. I have to admit that as Tory, there have been times when somebody has said things that have made me cringe with embarrassment on their behalf - and made me seriously doubt whether I want to be associated with them, even indirectly by being in the same party. But I don't feel I have ever been close to being confronted with the issues that the Labour Party is tolerating in keeping Ken Livingstone among their number.
All I can say is that when Labour chooses to keep Ken and his - shall we say, peculiar views on Hitler - but instead decides to lose you, they have fucked up on an epic scale.
Ms Sturgeon said: "Scotland's performance in hotel markets is exceptionally strong, with latest figures showing that we are outperforming 11 of the main 12 European hotel markets, including Paris, Madrid and Berlin - only London was higher”
What an odd statistic ! Why is an entire country (Scotland) being compared to other cities (Paris, Madrid).
Surely, it only makes sense to compare like with like e.g., Edinburgh to London or Paris ?
Or Scotland to e.g., France and Spain?
I wonder why this curious comparison has been done.
A little OT (and apologies if this has been posted already), but the Remainer holy text, the FT, has an interesting take on the opposition to Mrs May's apparent softening around transition terms:
"Many Eurosceptic Tory MPs are sovereigntists who want to take back parliamentary control. Relatively few are driven by a desire to cut immigration drastically."
Suggests the PM might have an easier time keeping her party inside than has been supposed; and also that the FT are looking for a way to back down and come to an accommodation with the new order...
That depends on how the public react. Even many remainers wanted immigration reduced, and so far the Tories have gotten away with failing on the targets set. Will that continue to be the case or will the public get mad eventually?
Eventually, absolutely. But not in a timescale that affects the negotiating process in the same way having a wing of the Tory parliamentary party peel away pre-2019 would; it's then a problem for the normal process of parliamentary democracy to work out over the next few electoral cycles.
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
+1
Sorry to read yesterday of your split with Labour. You were one of those members upon whom I felt a sane future rested. I have to admit that as Tory, there have been times when somebody has said things that have made me cringe with embarrassment on their behalf - and made me seriously doubt whether I want to be associated with them, even indirectly by being in the same party. But I don't feel I have ever been close to being confronted with the issues that the Labour Party is tolerating in keeping Ken Livingstone among their number.
All I can say is that when Labour chooses to keep Ken and his - shall we say, peculiar views on Hitler - but instead decides to lose you, they have fucked up on an epic scale.
They don't care. They either think that what Ken is saying is right or they have calculated that there are more votes to be gained by appealing to people who share these views than there are to be lost from people appalled by what is happening. In this, they may be right. Labour has done very little in recent years to confront the despicable views of many of its core voters. It has preferred to appease them and stroke their egos. Soon they will be the only voters Labour has left and its transformation into the Respect/SWP/STW party will be complete.
Exhaustion of natural resources due to overpopulation is not a problem in this country. It makes sense to aim for a birthrate of 2.1-2.2 rather than the current 1.8-1.9.
Water in the South East is, I read, becoming a big problem. Apparently they cannot take much more out of the rivers without causing major damage and the aquifers will not cope with the projected increase in population. So your point may not hold everywhere.
There is also the problem of non-natural resources. I am thinking here of things like roads, sewage disposal, railways etc.. The railways are already stretched to breaking point, the roads are becoming more and more gummed up (e.g. getting round past Heathrow without hitting a major delay is becoming rarer and rarer, even the M23 is becoming choked) and so on.
Yet the policy is to keep increasing the population without the necessary concomitant investment in infrastructure.
Or as I like to put it, building ever more boxes for people to live in without putting in the infrastructure and services they need.
It's not even that - we aren't building anything like enough homes. What's happening is that the existing housing stock is being increased far too slowly to meet the growth in demand, and what we do have is being ever more carved up into sub-units, particularly in London.
What we're doing is to largely let immigration run free, as it naturally will, to service the needs of the economy, be it illegal or legal, and then letting people cope themselves with the consequences of that for living, working and travelling.
We see cost/benefit analysis of immigration regularly, many of which show a net economic benefit, but most are fairly simplistic on raw GDP output v. cash benefits/taxes paid and they fail to price in infrastructure/housing costs into the model.
And of course most are bound up in identity politics (both ways) rather than being rational and sober.
I think there is a good argument to say the benefit is for the child and goes with the child, rather than the parent, and therefore it's irrelevant how many brothers and sisters he has.
Sure, there's an argument. There's always an argument for spending taxpayers' money.
Governments are there to spend taxpayers money. The question is whether they spend it in an efficient and equitable way. Providing financial support to two children, but not a third, seems to fail both tests, logically.
Ms Sturgeon said: "Scotland's performance in hotel markets is exceptionally strong, with latest figures showing that we are outperforming 11 of the main 12 European hotel markets, including Paris, Madrid and Berlin - only London was higher”
What an odd statistic ! Why is an entire country (Scotland) being compared to other cities (Paris, Madrid).
Surely, it only makes sense to compare like with like e.g., Edinburgh to London or Paris ?
Or Scotland to e.g., France and Spain?
I wonder why this curious comparison has been done.
The Mhairi Black school of misleading comparisons.
You should be embarrassed to be a cheerleader for George Osborne since he was the one who introduced this in the 2015 budget.
I told him enough times.
I'm certain had he remained Chancellor he would have ditched it.
Which aspect of the policy do you object to - the withdrawal of benefits for third child onwards, the exception for rape/coercive relationship, or the wording of the form to claim the exception?
I think there is a good argument to say the benefit is for the child and goes with the child, rather than the parent, and therefore it's irrelevant how many brothers and sisters he has.
If immigration is to go down substantially post-Brexit, parents are actually going to need incentives to have more kids.
Automation.
Automating manufacturing is one thing, but service industries? We're a ways off that happening in a serious fashion.
Limiting child benefit is a distraction in terms of welfare reform, tinkering at the edges. The big problem is end of life welfare.
If jobs go in one areas of the economy, labour should move to the other.
I agree healthcare, social care and welfare is an ever greater problem as the population ages. The only real solution is for people to work longer to match.
Further to the last thread, as a novice on the french elections, what is it aboutu Melenchon that leads some to say were he to make the final two with Le Pen, that would open up a path (though still unlikely) for her to win?
The fact that he's a nutjob.
Melenchon v Le Pen would be close, but I think Melenchon would be slight favourite and his performances in the TV debates so far suggest that he would clinch it in the debate or debates between R1 and R2.
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
+1
Sorry to read yesterday of your split with Labour. You were one of those members upon whom I felt a sane future rested. I have to admit that as Tory, there have been times when somebody has said things that have made me cringe with embarrassment on their behalf - and made me seriously doubt whether I want to be associated with them, even indirectly by being in the same party. But I don't feel I have ever been close to being confronted with the issues that the Labour Party is tolerating in keeping Ken Livingstone among their number.
All I can say is that when Labour chooses to keep Ken and his - shall we say, peculiar views on Hitler - but instead decides to lose you, they have fucked up on an epic scale.
They don't care. They either think that what Ken is saying is right or they have calculated that there are more votes to be gained by appealing to people who share these views than there are to be lost from people appalled by what is happening. In this, they may be right. Labour has done very little in recent years to confront the despicable views of many of its core voters. It has preferred to appease them and stroke their egos. Soon they will be the only voters Labour has left and its transformation into the Respect/SWP/STW party will be complete.
He will definitely appeal to the nutter that called in to Radio Daily Mirror this morning...apparently the west is running a conspiracy of pro-shia / anti-sunni and is the reason why we don't want to topple Assad.
I am interested how the West's (non) relationship with Iran is Pro-Shia.
Ms Sturgeon said: "Scotland's performance in hotel markets is exceptionally strong, with latest figures showing that we are outperforming 11 of the main 12 European hotel markets, including Paris, Madrid and Berlin - only London was higher”
What an odd statistic ! Why is an entire country (Scotland) being compared to other cities (Paris, Madrid).
Surely, it only makes sense to compare like with like e.g., Edinburgh to London or Paris ?
Or Scotland to e.g., France and Spain?
I wonder why this curious comparison has been done.
The Mhairi Black school of misleading comparisons.
I think private schools are edging very close to losing their charitable status.
Far too many of them are charging exorbitant fees that put them well out of the reach of their traditional middle-class supporters, and they risk becoming bastions of the super-rich.
Even the cheapest day schools now charge upwards of £15k a year, and you either need pre-tax salary wiggle room of about £30k to fund that, per child - i.e. you need to be close to a six figure salary - or to raid a meaty inheritance.
To be honest basic childcare sounds like it now costs about as much (adjusted for inflation) as my private school fees - which have gone through the roof since I attended. My old school now has better facilites than when I was there I think though. If I have a kid it'll be state + tutoring (Which I can do myself for maths)
I think I'll be doing the same.
Yes, that's my point. State schools shouldn't end at 2.30-3pm.
You're living in fairyland if you think most state primary schools are ever going to remain open after 3pm late enough for parents to collect their kids after a normal working day. The teachers won't agree in a million years, even if they are given a commensurate pay rise to keep them in school an extra few hours (they won't be). Here in Sussex the threat is that the school day may be shortened further and perhaps even moved to a 4 day week due to funding cuts.
Another thing I meant to say in response to your original post was that expected parent engagement with the school in terms of attending parents meetings, reading sessions, activities etc - all slap bang in the middle of the working day - is absolutely relentless compared to when I was at school (I am 40).
Teachers especially primary ones have it good , 25 hour week and at least 17 weeks holidays. No wonder they are mainly lefties, be tough if they ever ended up in the real world.
You're correct of course. We never do any marking or preparation for lessons and I'm not working in school at the moment despite it being part of my thirteen weeks holiday. When are you going to join us in this wonderful career? For some reason there is a bit of a recruitment problem, so I'm sure you would get a job easily.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
+1
Sorry to read yesterday of your split with Labour. You were one of those members upon whom I felt a sane future rested. I have to admit that as Tory, there have been times when somebody has said things that have made me cringe with embarrassment on their behalf - and made me seriously doubt whether I want to be associated with them, even indirectly by being in the same party. But I don't feel I have ever been close to being confronted with the issues that the Labour Party is tolerating in keeping Ken Livingstone among their number.
All I can say is that when Labour chooses to keep Ken and his - shall we say, peculiar views on Hitler - but instead decides to lose you, they have fucked up on an epic scale.
They don't care. They either think that what Ken is saying is right or they have calculated that there are more votes to be gained by appealing to people who share these views than there are to be lost from people appalled by what is happening. In this, they may be right. Labour has done very little in recent years to confront the despicable views of many of its core voters. It has preferred to appease them and stroke their egos. Soon they will be the only voters Labour has left and its transformation into the Respect/SWP/STW party will be complete.
My own circle of friends who have been Labour members and activists are appalled. They used to - wrongly in my opinion, but it was there - take comfort from having a moral superiority over the Tories. This has really shaken that. If not even the Tories tolerate these appalling views, then what hope have they?
It is going to take more than a change of leader to get them onboard again.
Looks like a depreciation of the £ driven tourism boom given London is the best performing. No need for IndyRef2 then given the benefits Scotland is already feeling from Brexit....
Looks like a depreciation of the £ driven tourism boom given London is the best performing. No need for IndyRef2 then given the benefits Scotland is already feeling from Brexit....
The Brent price of sterling has been steadily increasing, which should aid Scottish GERS a touch I'd have thought ?
A little OT (and apologies if this has been posted already), but the Remainer holy text, the FT, has an interesting take on the opposition to Mrs May's apparent softening around transition terms:
"Many Eurosceptic Tory MPs are sovereigntists who want to take back parliamentary control. Relatively few are driven by a desire to cut immigration drastically."
Suggests the PM might have an easier time keeping her party inside than has been supposed; and also that the FT are looking for a way to back down and come to an accommodation with the new order...
That depends on how the public react. Even many remainers wanted immigration reduced, and so far the Tories have gotten away with failing on the targets set. Will that continue to be the case or will the public get mad eventually?
The tide of public opinion on immigration needs to be turned first.
What has pissed people off is being ignored and patronised. Many voters concerned by immigration have been shrugged off and told that diversity is darn well good for them, and the more of it they have the better. This has usually been from those who benefit economically from immigration the most, and bear little of its costs. At best, those politicians have made noises about needing to be seen to be listening to public concerns - and then done precisely nothing about it, other than pay lip-service to a bit of what they've heard - and then simply re-extolled its universal virtues. At worst, such concerns have been linked to overt or covert bigotry, which is true in some cases, but far fewer than politicians think.
"Turning the tide" could be achieved by a short-term drop of significance for 5 years, accompanied by new national parliamentary controls on migration quotas, provision for an emergency break in times of stress, renewed focus on infrastructure relief for areas affected by high immigration, and a industrial/ education strategy that trains up domestic workers where an obvious imbalance is discovered.
If all that is put in place, that should take most of the heat out of it as people will both feel listened to and in control, and accept net immigration continuing to run at 150-200k net per year in the good years.
But, it starts with respect, and ends with action.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
""While the downturn in the oil and gas sector remains part of the explanation, it is difficult to ignore the substantial declines in construction over the past year (-6%) or in manufacturing (-7.3%) - with all areas of manufacturing, not just those tied to the North Sea supply chain, shrinking during 2016.""
Exhaustion of natural resources due to overpopulation is not a problem in this country. It makes sense to aim for a birthrate of 2.1-2.2 rather than the current 1.8-1.9.
Water in the South East is, I read, becoming a big problem. Apparently they cannot take much more out of the rivers without causing major damage and the aquifers will not cope with the projected increase in population. So your point may not hold everywhere.
There is also the problem of non-natural resources. I am thinking here of things like roads, sewage disposal, railways etc.. The railways are already stretched to breaking point, the roads are becoming more and more gummed up (e.g. getting round past Heathrow without hitting a major delay is becoming rarer and rarer, even the M23 is becoming choked) and so on.
Yet the policy is to keep increasing the population without the necessary concomitant investment in infrastructure.
Thames Water wanted to build a large reservoir at Abingdon but the planners/regulators turned it down in 2011 and told them to plug the leaking pipes instead.
The company still want to build a reservoir but are unlikely to get permission.
There could be a snowball effect for Melenchon here - now that he is looking so close to overtaking Fillon, it will become the narrative and I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamon do even worse on the night, and the mini candidates lose their bounce, pushing Melenchon up to 19/20%.
This morning's Opinionway rolling poll gives it:
Le Pen 25% (-1) Macron 24% (NC) Fillon 20% (NC) Melenchon 16% (+1)
Two things about this poll
1. It has been consistently favourable to Fillon throughout, showing him about 2 points higher than most other polls.
2. It is a rolling poll over a three days cycle. Meaning that any daily changes are down to just a third of the voters used in the poll. Today's poll is the first poll that will have included some reaction from the tv debate. However the full reaction will not be seen until monday when all three days voting included in the poll will consist of post tv debate polling. With that in mind, assuming Melenchon has had a boost from the debate, I would expect further improvement from him in this poll over the next two polls.
All the polls taken post debate in full of in part so Le Pen and Macron still tied at the top and Melenchon up but still trailing Fillon. I would also expect both Fillon and Hamon to do a little better than final polls suggest as a few voters stick to habit and the traditional parties
The extreme left hate Jews and Israel. Here is one of the senior lecturers at Brighton Uni from when I was there in 10/11, they force this stuff down kids throats at every opportunity. I would imagine Brighton uni students and staff are under the impression Corbyn has been too harsh on Livingstone
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
But it takes a real genius to combat the uncertainty of Brexit by suggesting the, er, uncertainty of independence - with all the attendant multiplied uncertainties....
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
Surely Livingstone's point is that some German Jews aided and abbetted their own move from Germany to Israel.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
Good argument. Pity the FM didn't make it - thus ending up looking foolish in front of investors, businessmen and hoteliers...
Governments are there to spend taxpayers money. The question is whether they spend it in an efficient and equitable way. Providing financial support to two children, but not a third, seems to fail both tests, logically.
Why? For a starter, the incremental running costs of the third child are less than the running costs of the first. Secondly, most freebies are capped, why not the number of children we pay for? Thirdly, it's up to parents to take personal responsibility for whether they are in a financial position to afford more children. And fourthly, the previous system was being disgracefully abused.
A little OT (and apologies if this has been posted already), but the Remainer holy text, the FT, has an interesting take on the opposition to Mrs May's apparent softening around transition terms:
"Many Eurosceptic Tory MPs are sovereigntists who want to take back parliamentary control. Relatively few are driven by a desire to cut immigration drastically."
Suggests the PM might have an easier time keeping her party inside than has been supposed; and also that the FT are looking for a way to back down and come to an accommodation with the new order...
That depends on how the public react. Even many remainers wanted immigration reduced, and so far the Tories have gotten away with failing on the targets set. Will that continue to be the case or will the public get mad eventually?
The tide of public opinion on immigration needs to be turned first.
What has pissed people off is being ignored and patronised. Many voters concerned by immigration have been shrugged off and told that diversity is darn well good for them, and the more of it they have the better. This has usually been from those who benefit economically from immigration the most, and bear little of its costs. At best, those politicians have made noises about needing to be seen to be listening to public concerns - and then done precisely nothing about it, other than pay lip-service to a bit of what they've heard - and then simply re-extolled its universal virtues. At worst, such concerns have been linked to overt or covert bigotry, which is true in some cases, but far fewer than politicians think.
"Turning the tide" could be achieved by a short-term drop of significance for 5 years, accompanied by new national parliamentary controls on migration quotas, provision for an emergency break in times of stress, renewed focus on infrastructure relief for areas affected by high immigration, and a industrial/ education strategy that trains up domestic workers where an obvious imbalance is discovered.
If all that is put in place, that should take most of the heat out of it as people will both feel listened to and in control, and accept net immigration continuing to run at 150-200k net per year in the good years.
But, it starts with respect, and ends with action.
Matthew Goodwins word cloud from Leave voters reasons for Brexit IMMIGRATION
Look back over the last five decades, the public have never wanted immigration, they vote for parties that say they'll be tough and who never are
Look at the contemporary polling of Enoch Powells speech. Unprecedented support
Then we had a referendum that for many was a chance to say ENOUGH! And we did
Looks like a depreciation of the £ driven tourism boom given London is the best performing. No need for IndyRef2 then given the benefits Scotland is already feeling from Brexit....
The Brent price of sterling has been steadily increasing, which should aid Scottish GERS a touch I'd have thought ?
I think there is a good argument to say the benefit is for the child and goes with the child, rather than the parent, and therefore it's irrelevant how many brothers and sisters he has.
Sure, there's an argument. There's always an argument for spending taxpayers' money.
Governments are there to spend taxpayers money. The question is whether they spend it in an efficient and equitable way. Providing financial support to two children, but not a third, seems to fail both tests, logically.
People choose whether to have no, one, two, three or more children. Two is roughly the replacement rate so some support for the first two may be justified. Beyond that, if you don't want to pay for them, don't make them. I assume most people still learn the facts of life at age 11-12?!
Looks like a depreciation of the £ driven tourism boom given London is the best performing. No need for IndyRef2 then given the benefits Scotland is already feeling from Brexit....
The Brent price of sterling has been steadily increasing, which should aid Scottish GERS a touch I'd have thought ?
Further to the last thread, as a novice on the french elections, what is it aboutu Melenchon that leads some to say were he to make the final two with Le Pen, that would open up a path (though still unlikely) for her to win?
The fact that he's a nutjob.
Melenchon v Le Pen would be close, but I think Melenchon would be slight favourite and his performances in the TV debates so far suggest that he would clinch it in the debate or debates between R1 and R2.
Most Fillon voters would in the end go for Le Pen if Melenchon was the alternative, Hamon voters would go for Melenchon, most Macron voters would hold their nose and vote for Melenchon, he could win but would be such a disaster for France economically (32 hour week, soak the rich, lower the retirement age etc) and so soft on national security the right would win a landslide in 5 years and May well sweep the legislative elections too
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
Surely Livingstone's point is that some German Jews aided and abbetted their own move from Germany to Israel.
A bad point if ever there was one. You can have some of what we stole from you back provided you piss off. I hardly think "aided and abetted" is an apt way of putting it.
Ms Sturgeon said: "Scotland's performance in hotel markets is exceptionally strong, with latest figures showing that we are outperforming 11 of the main 12 European hotel markets, including Paris, Madrid and Berlin - only London was higher”
What an odd statistic ! Why is an entire country (Scotland) being compared to other cities (Paris, Madrid).
Surely, it only makes sense to compare like with like e.g., Edinburgh to London or Paris ?
Or Scotland to e.g., France and Spain?
I wonder why this curious comparison has been done.
The Mhairi Black school of misleading comparisons.
The "it's unfair a country (pop 5m) should have fewer MPs than a single city (pop 8m)" line of reasoning?
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
Good argument. Pity the FM didn't make it - thus ending up looking foolish in front of investors, businessmen and hoteliers...
There could be a snowball effect for Melenchon here - now that he is looking so close to overtaking Fillon, it will become the narrative and I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamon do even worse on the night, and the mini candidates lose their bounce, pushing Melenchon up to 19/20%.
This morning's Opinionway rolling poll gives it:
Le Pen 25% (-1) Macron 24% (NC) Fillon 20% (NC) Melenchon 16% (+1)
Two things about this poll
1. It has been consistently favourable to Fillon throughout, showing him about 2 points higher than most other polls.
2. It is a rolling poll over a three days cycle. Meaning that any daily changes are down to just a third of the voters used in the poll. Today's poll is the first poll that will have included some reaction from the tv debate. However the full reaction will not be seen until monday when all three days voting included in the poll will consist of post tv debate polling. With that in mind, assuming Melenchon has had a boost from the debate, I would expect further improvement from him in this poll over the next two polls.
All the polls taken post debate in full of in part so Le Pen and Macron still tied at the top and Melenchon up but still trailing Fillon. I would also expect both Fillon and Hamon to do a little better than final polls suggest as a few voters stick to habit and the traditional parties
We rarely agree HYUFD, but I do appreciate your posts. They cause me to pause and re-examine my thinking.
In this case, however, I think the market underestimates Melenchon';s chances. I tend to bet on momentum in the polls and Melenchon is the only runner in the field with momentum. I would liken it to a 3m mile steeplechase in heavy conditions. They have just jumped the last fence and the front 3 are staying on at one pace, but the horse in 4th place is gaining ground and is only a length behind 3rd.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
""While the downturn in the oil and gas sector remains part of the explanation, it is difficult to ignore the substantial declines in construction over the past year (-6%) or in manufacturing (-7.3%) - with all areas of manufacturing, not just those tied to the North Sea supply chain, shrinking during 2016.""
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
Surely Livingstone's point is that some German Jews aided and abbetted their own move from Germany to Israel.
The problem as I see it is KL makes it sound as though it was a neutral common sense agreement w Hitler rather than ethnic cleansing
I'm trying to think of a phrase to describe Corbyn initiatives like this new school meals policy, and "unpopular populist" is about the best I can get - something ostensibly populist but which will end up losing him support.
VAT on private school fees, whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy, will be seen by middle-class swing voters as a tax on aspiration - something limiting their options for their children. That's not a good look.
Meanwhile, universal free school meals will further erode Labour support among teachers, who loathed Clegg's halfway-house gimmick and who are currently trying to run their schools with fast-reducing budgets. Ask any teacher what would make the biggest difference to their pupils' educational chances and I would be amazed if "free lunch" was ever cited.
As someone generally centre-left in outlook, I despair. I would have expected little better from Corbyn, but I thought Angela Rayner was smarter than this.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
Given all the levers of power are at Westminster , how are they supposed to do anything, they can only spend the declining pocket money they are given. They cannot change anything materially without power. Replacing road signs does not cut it.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
""While the downturn in the oil and gas sector remains part of the explanation, it is difficult to ignore the substantial declines in construction over the past year (-6%) or in manufacturing (-7.3%) - with all areas of manufacturing, not just those tied to the North Sea supply chain, shrinking during 2016.""
I'm trying to think of a phrase to describe Corbyn initiatives like this new school meals policy, and "unpopular populist" is about the best I can get - something ostensibly populist but which will end up losing him support.
VAT on private school fees, whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy, will be seen by middle-class swing voters as a tax on aspiration - something limiting their options for their children. That's not a good look.
Meanwhile, universal free school meals will further erode Labour support among teachers, who loathed Clegg's halfway-house gimmick and who are currently trying to run their schools with fast-reducing budgets. Ask any teacher what would make the biggest difference to their pupils' educational chances and I would be amazed if "free lunch" was ever cited.
As someone generally centre-left in outlook, I despair. I would have expected little better from Corbyn, but I thought Angela Rayner was smarter than this.
There is also the minor issue of his figures are total bollocks. Putting aside the fact that increase VAT will mean less UK students at private schools and probably less UK private schools in total, resulting in more kids in state system = more cost.....
The money raised from the VAT won't cover the large cost of providing all these free meals. I am not against the idea of a free meal for all, but it ain't cheap and just whacking a few rich people won't cover it.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
Exactly , it is called fiddling the books as every non fool knows
By the Scottish government - thus showing up the SNP?
Surely not?
They balance their budget, UK borrows the £70 billion and charges Scotland the interest, that is one way they do it for sure, along with the pretendy defence spending and on and on. It is well kent who does the fiddling , though apparently not among Tory emigrant tax exiles.
I think there is a good argument to say the benefit is for the child and goes with the child, rather than the parent, and therefore it's irrelevant how many brothers and sisters he has.
Sure, there's an argument. There's always an argument for spending taxpayers' money.
Governments are there to spend taxpayers money. The question is whether they spend it in an efficient and equitable way. Providing financial support to two children, but not a third, seems to fail both tests, logically.
People choose whether to have no, one, two, three or more children. Two is roughly the replacement rate so some support for the first two may be justified. Beyond that, if you don't want to pay for them, don't make them. I assume most people still learn the facts of life at age 11-12?!
Taxpayers cannot be expected to support 3 or more children, if you want more then get a job
I think there is a good argument to say the benefit is for the child and goes with the child, rather than the parent, and therefore it's irrelevant how many brothers and sisters he has.
Sure, there's an argument. There's always an argument for spending taxpayers' money.
Governments are there to spend taxpayers money. The question is whether they spend it in an efficient and equitable way. Providing financial support to two children, but not a third, seems to fail both tests, logically.
People choose whether to have no, one, two, three or more children. Two is roughly the replacement rate so some support for the first two may be justified. Beyond that, if you don't want to pay for them, don't make them. I assume most people still learn the facts of life at age 11-12?!
Taxpayers cannot be expected to support 3 or more children, if you want more then get a job
I have no idea how people afford 3 kids even with a job...
There could be a snowball effect for Melenchon here - now that he is looking so close to overtaking Fillon, it will become the narrative and I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamon do even worse on the night, and the mini candidates lose their bounce, pushing Melenchon up to 19/20%.
This morning's Opinionway rolling poll gives it:
Le Pen 25% (-1) Macron 24% (NC) Fillon 20% (NC) Melenchon 16% (+1)
Two things about this poll
1. It has been consistently favourable to Fillon throughout, showing him about 2 points higher than most other polls.
2. It is a rolling poll over a three days cycle. Meaning that any daily changes are down to just a third of the voters used in the poll. Today's poll is the first poll that will have included some reaction from the tv debate. However the full reaction will not be seen until monday when all three days voting included in the poll will consist of post tv debate polling. With that in mind, assuming Melenchon has had a boost from the debate, I would expect further improvement from him in this poll over the next two polls.
All the polls taken post debate in full of in part so Le Pen and Macron still tied at the top and Melenchon up but still trailing Fillon. I would also expect both Fillon and Hamon to do a little better than final polls suggest as a few voters stick to habit and the traditional parties
We rarely agree HYUFD, but I do appreciate your posts. They cause me to pause and re-examine my thinking.
In this case, however, I think the market underestimates Melenchon';s chances. I tend to bet on momentum in the polls and Melenchon is the only runner in the field with momentum. I would liken it to a 3m mile steeplechase in heavy conditions. They have just jumped the last fence and the front 3 are staying on at one pace, but the horse in 4th place is gaining ground and is only a length behind 3rd.
Than you for your comments but tell Prime Minister Clegg how winning a debate as a third party candidate gave him the momentum for victory
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
""While the downturn in the oil and gas sector remains part of the explanation, it is difficult to ignore the substantial declines in construction over the past year (-6%) or in manufacturing (-7.3%) - with all areas of manufacturing, not just those tied to the North Sea supply chain, shrinking during 2016.""
In which Polling Digest have a stab at working out which Tory seats might be most vulnerable to the Lib Dems at the next election, if fought on current boundaries.
If the yellows were to hold everything they've currently got and take all this lot as well, then they would be up to 15. Regaining Cambridge from Labour looks highly likely, which would leave them with four more gains to find to get back to where Paddy Ashdown was 25 years ago.
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
Surely Livingstone's point is that some German Jews aided and abbetted their own move from Germany to Israel.
The problem as I see it is KL makes it sound as though it was a neutral common sense agreement w Hitler rather than ethnic cleansing
What? That is back to front: it was a neutral common sense agreement, and Livingstone is trying to make it sound like [Jews cooperating in] ethnic cleansing. None of this is historically controversial; "final solution" means the solution eventually settled on after previous solutions (expulsion to Israel/Madagascar/the rest of the world) had not worked. Livingstone's offence is not in the main misrepresenting the truth*, but stating it in a way designed to generate misinterpretations.
* that is, about the existence of the Agreement. His subsidiary claims about Hitler approving the flying of the Zionist flag in Germany are bonkers.
I think there is a good argument to say the benefit is for the child and goes with the child, rather than the parent, and therefore it's irrelevant how many brothers and sisters he has.
Sure, there's an argument. There's always an argument for spending taxpayers' money.
Governments are there to spend taxpayers money. The question is whether they spend it in an efficient and equitable way. Providing financial support to two children, but not a third, seems to fail both tests, logically.
People choose whether to have no, one, two, three or more children. Two is roughly the replacement rate so some support for the first two may be justified. Beyond that, if you don't want to pay for them, don't make them. I assume most people still learn the facts of life at age 11-12?!
Taxpayers cannot be expected to support 3 or more children, if you want more then get a job
I have no idea how people afford 3 kids even with a job...
Having a Nicola Horlick or Jamie Oliver as your parent helps
I think there is a good argument to say the benefit is for the child and goes with the child, rather than the parent, and therefore it's irrelevant how many brothers and sisters he has.
Sure, there's an argument. There's always an argument for spending taxpayers' money.
Governments are there to spend taxpayers money. The question is whether they spend it in an efficient and equitable way. Providing financial support to two children, but not a third, seems to fail both tests, logically.
People choose whether to have no, one, two, three or more children. Two is roughly the replacement rate so some support for the first two may be justified. Beyond that, if you don't want to pay for them, don't make them. I assume most people still learn the facts of life at age 11-12?!
Taxpayers cannot be expected to support 3 or more children, if you want more then get a job
I have no idea how people afford 3 kids even with a job...
There could be a snowball effect for Melenchon here - now that he is looking so close to overtaking Fillon, it will become the narrative and I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamon do even worse on the night, and the mini candidates lose their bounce, pushing Melenchon up to 19/20%.
Has Macron peaked too soon? If support for Mélenchon continues to increase, then surely it will principally be at the expense of Macron in terms of the three front runners.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
TBF, oil and finance, which are disproportionately heavy sectors in Scotland, account for most, perhaps all, the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK. The SNP government is mediocre, but not everything bad is their fault.
""While the downturn in the oil and gas sector remains part of the explanation, it is difficult to ignore the substantial declines in construction over the past year (-6%) or in manufacturing (-7.3%) - with all areas of manufacturing, not just those tied to the North Sea supply chain, shrinking during 2016.""
There could be a snowball effect for Melenchon here - now that he is looking so close to overtaking Fillon, it will become the narrative and I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamon do even worse on the night, and the mini candidates lose their bounce, pushing Melenchon up to 19/20%.
This morning's Opinionway rolling poll gives it:
Le Pen 25% (-1) Macron 24% (NC) Fillon 20% (NC) Melenchon 16% (+1)
Two things about this poll
1. It has been consistently favourable to Fillon throughout, showing him about 2 points higher than most other polls.
2. It is a rolling poll over a three days cycle. Meaning that any daily changes are down to just a third of the voters used in the poll. Today's poll is the first poll that will have included some reaction from the tv debate. However the full reaction will not be seen until monday when all three days voting included in the poll will consist of post tv debate polling. With that in mind, assuming Melenchon has had a boost from the debate, I would expect further improvement from him in this poll over the next two polls.
All the polls taken post debate in full of in part so Le Pen and Macron still tied at the top and Melenchon up but still trailing Fillon. I would also expect both Fillon and Hamon to do a little better than final polls suggest as a few voters stick to habit and the traditional parties
We rarely agree HYUFD, but I do appreciate your posts. They cause me to pause and re-examine my thinking.
In this case, however, I think the market underestimates Melenchon';s chances. I tend to bet on momentum in the polls and Melenchon is the only runner in the field with momentum. I would liken it to a 3m mile steeplechase in heavy conditions. They have just jumped the last fence and the front 3 are staying on at one pace, but the horse in 4th place is gaining ground and is only a length behind 3rd.
Than you for your comments but tell Prime Minister Clegg how winning a debate as a third party candidate gave him the momentum for victory
Different country, different electoral system and different type of election. If we had been having a Presidential election, Mr Clegg might well have become President.
The problem is partly one of typesetting - they should have confined the heading to "Support for a child conceived without your consent" and then put "conceived without your consent means ..." in a footnote. Small print was invented for a reason.
Scanning the responses to a piece by David Baddiel about Ken Livingstone, what's shocking is the number of people saying that they hadn't understood why his comments were offensive until it was explained in detail. "Ken stated a fact" seems to be a very common view among his natural supporters.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
Surely Livingstone's point is that some German Jews aided and abbetted their own move from Germany to Israel.
The problem as I see it is KL makes it sound as though it was a neutral common sense agreement w Hitler rather than ethnic cleansing
What? That is back to front: it was a neutral common sense agreement, and Livingstone is trying to make it sound like [Jews cooperating in] ethnic cleansing. None of this is historically controversial; "final solution" means the solution eventually settled on after previous solutions (expulsion to Israel/Madagascar/the rest of the world) had not worked. Livingstone's offence is not in the main misrepresenting the truth*, but stating it in a way designed to generate misinterpretations.
* that is, about the existence of the Agreement. His subsidiary claims about Hitler approving the flying of the Zionist flag in Germany are bonkers.
He makes it sound as if Hitler's motivation wasn't ethnic cleansing is what I'm trying to say
There could be a snowball effect for Melenchon here - now that he is looking so close to overtaking Fillon, it will become the narrative and I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamon do even worse on the night, and the mini candidates lose their bounce, pushing Melenchon up to 19/20%.
This morning's Opinionway rolling poll gives it:
Le Pen 25% (-1) Macron 24% (NC) Fillon 20% (NC) Melenchon 16% (+1)
Two things about this poll
1. It has been consistently favourable to Fillon throughout, showing him about 2 points higher than most other polls.
2. It is a rolling poll over a three days cycle. Meaning that any daily changes are down to just a third of the voters used in the poll. Today's poll is the first poll that will have included some reaction from the tv debate. However the full reaction will not be seen until monday when all three days voting included in the poll will consist of post tv debate polling. With that in mind, assuming Melenchon has had a boost from the debate, I would expect further improvement from him in this poll over the next two polls.
All the polls taken post debate in full of in part so Le Pen and Macron still tied at the top and Melenchon up but still trailing Fillon. I would also expect both Fillon and Hamon to do a little better than final polls suggest as a few voters stick to habit and the traditional parties
We rarely agree HYUFD, but I do appreciate your posts. They cause me to pause and re-examine my thinking.
In this case, however, I think the market underestimates Melenchon';s chances. I tend to bet on momentum in the polls and Melenchon is the only runner in the field with momentum. I would liken it to a 3m mile steeplechase in heavy conditions. They have just jumped the last fence and the front 3 are staying on at one pace, but the horse in 4th place is gaining ground and is only a length behind 3rd.
Than you for your comments but tell Prime Minister Clegg how winning a debate as a third party candidate gave him the momentum for victory
Different country, different electoral system and different type of election. If we had been having a Presidential election, Mr Clegg might well have become President.
Ross Perot won the first debate in 1992 in the U.S. but still came third in the end
The problem is partly one of typesetting - they should have confined the heading to "Support for a child conceived without your consent" and then put "conceived without your consent means ..." in a footnote. Small print was invented for a reason.
But it is frowned upon in official circles now.
And imagine the headlines the first time someone makes what she believes to be a legitimate claim only to be knocked back by something in the small print.
Edit: I think I'm replying to Ishmael. One day I'll get the hang of block quotes.
They have fallen between two stools - the clear options were to not allow an exception for rape victims, or not to have the limit at all.
I have noticed that has crept into the lexicon of victims of a range of crimes (not just rape) and other things like mental health, anorexia, etc...
Clearly victim or sufferer is not PC anymore. I better be careful otherwise I might have the thought-mob on me for using the incorrect terminology.
I got in trouble last year for using the term brain storm, which I was told was offensive to those with epilepsy. When I said oh has somebody here got it, it was told no thats not the point. I didn't bother telling them the next day I had similar session with a friend who does and they had arranged it.
There could be a snowball effect for Melenchon here - now that he is looking so close to overtaking Fillon, it will become the narrative and I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamon do even worse on the night, and the mini candidates lose their bounce, pushing Melenchon up to 19/20%.
Has Macron peaked too soon? If support for Mélenchon continues to increase, then surely it will principally be at the expense of Macron in terms of the three front runners.
Not so sure about that. Up until now, Melenchon's increase in support has come mainly at the expense of Hamon. However, there are an unusually large number of undecided voters in France this time around and it could be that Melenchon picks up more than his share of those undecided, influenced by the TV debates, and that all three of the front runners suffer equally.
Baddiel is being too kind to Livingstone and other left-wing Jew-baiters. In going on relentlessly about supposed Zionist accommodations with Hitler, Livingstone is implying that to some extent at least the Jews aided and abetted their own annihilation. That is just despicable.
+1
Sorry to read yesterday of your split with Labour. You were one of those members upon whom I felt a sane future rested. I have to admit that as Tory, there have been times when somebody has said things that have made me cringe with embarrassment on their behalf - and made me seriously doubt whether I want to be associated with them, even indirectly by being in the same party. But I don't feel I have ever been close to being confronted with the issues that the Labour Party is tolerating in keeping Ken Livingstone among their number.
All I can say is that when Labour chooses to keep Ken and his - shall we say, peculiar views on Hitler - but instead decides to lose you, they have fucked up on an epic scale.
They don't care. They either think that what Ken is saying is right or they have calculated that there are more votes to be gained by appealing to people who share these views than there are to be lost from people appalled by what is happening. In this, they may be right. Labour has done very little in recent years to confront the despicable views of many of its core voters. It has preferred to appease them and stroke their egos. Soon they will be the only voters Labour has left and its transformation into the Respect/SWP/STW party will be complete.
My own circle of friends who have been Labour members and activists are appalled. They used to - wrongly in my opinion, but it was there - take comfort from having a moral superiority over the Tories. This has really shaken that. If not even the Tories tolerate these appalling views, then what hope have they?
It is going to take more than a change of leader to get them onboard again.
Indeed. There is a moral collapse within Labour. Labour will need to rediscover its moral compass once the Corbyn era ends. This is not going to be easy and will take time. A shiny new face and some cuddly policies will not be enough. Once trust has gone, once your nerve and self-confidence have gone, it is a hell of a job rebuilding them.
The phrase "Labour values" seem to me to be a sort of sick joke because over recent years Labour have shown in myriad ways (the Ken episode being only the latest example) that, when it comes to it, they don't really believe in their values at all, not in any meaningful sense. And if they don't, why the hell should anyone else?
Just watching 'Westminster In Review' on BBC. Coverage of the Article 50 debate, after brief clips of David Davis and Keir Starmer, comprised:
Pro-Government: Bill Cash (brief) Nicky Morgan (brief, half of which taken up by her telling us she voted 'Remain') Gerald Howarth (brief)
Anti-Government: Stephen Gethins (brief) Nick Clegg (brief) Ken Clarke (extended) Tulip Siddiq (brief) Mary Creagh (extended) Claire Perry (extended) Alex Salmond (extended)
They then showed the clip of ardent Remainers singing the 'Ode to Joy' in te chamber, with the presenter of the programme likening them to the band playing as the 'Titanic' sank.
I shall be complaining to the BBC (not that I expect much)
I got in trouble last year for using the term brain storm, which I was told was offensive to those with epilepsy. When I said oh has somebody here got it, it was told no thats not the point.
I have epilepsy, and I can't say it would have occurred to me that that might be offensive.
Comments
https://hypermind.com/dash/frprez/dash.html
Another thing I meant to say in response to your original post was that expected parent engagement with the school in terms of attending parents meetings, reading sessions, activities etc - all slap bang in the middle of the working day - is absolutely relentless compared to when I was at school (I am 40).
Still, that the official PS candidate could be on 9% is pretty staggering, however you look at it.
No antisemitism problem in the Labour party, they had an inquiry and everything.
Childcare costs, child benefit cuts and house prices are the main constraints for working couples and middle earners.
There is also the problem of non-natural resources. I am thinking here of things like roads, sewage disposal, railways etc.. The railways are already stretched to breaking point, the roads are becoming more and more gummed up (e.g. getting round past Heathrow without hitting a major delay is becoming rarer and rarer, even the M23 is becoming choked) and so on.
Yet the policy is to keep increasing the population without the necessary concomitant investment in infrastructure.
You see both teachers and funding as the obstacles. I was thinking of starting with a simple form of after-school club (within the same school) run for an extra three hours, possibly by outsiders in things like arts & crafts, PE, sports, or discovery activities, that would not require the primary school teachers to continue, unless they wished to opt into doing so for the extra pay.
I would be open to that being charged for at, say, £150 per week per child, with means-testing for the poorest.
Limiting child benefit is a distraction in terms of welfare reform, tinkering at the edges. The big problem is end of life welfare.
Le Pen 25% (-1)
Macron 24% (NC)
Fillon 20% (NC)
Melenchon 16% (+1)
Two things about this poll
1. It has been consistently favourable to Fillon throughout, showing him about 2 points higher than most other polls.
2. It is a rolling poll over a three days cycle. Meaning that any daily changes are down to just a third of the voters used in the poll. Today's poll is the first poll that will have included some reaction from the tv debate. However the full reaction will not be seen until monday when all three days voting included in the poll will consist of post tv debate polling. With that in mind, assuming Melenchon has had a boost from the debate, I would expect further improvement from him in this poll over the next two polls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-39513536
Sorry to read yesterday of your split with Labour. You were one of those members upon whom I felt a sane future rested. I have to admit that as Tory, there have been times when somebody has said things that have made me cringe with embarrassment on their behalf - and made me seriously doubt whether I want to be associated with them, even indirectly by being in the same party. But I don't feel I have ever been close to being confronted with the issues that the Labour Party is tolerating in keeping Ken Livingstone among their number.
All I can say is that when Labour chooses to keep Ken and his - shall we say, peculiar views on Hitler - but instead decides to lose you, they have fucked up on an epic scale.
What an odd statistic ! Why is an entire country (Scotland) being compared to other cities (Paris, Madrid).
Surely, it only makes sense to compare like with like e.g., Edinburgh to London or Paris ?
Or Scotland to e.g., France and Spain?
I wonder why this curious comparison has been done.
What we're doing is to largely let immigration run free, as it naturally will, to service the needs of the economy, be it illegal or legal, and then letting people cope themselves with the consequences of that for living, working and travelling.
We see cost/benefit analysis of immigration regularly, many of which show a net economic benefit, but most are fairly simplistic on raw GDP output v. cash benefits/taxes paid and they fail to price in infrastructure/housing costs into the model.
And of course most are bound up in identity politics (both ways) rather than being rational and sober.
I agree healthcare, social care and welfare is an ever greater problem as the population ages. The only real solution is for people to work longer to match.
I am interested how the West's (non) relationship with Iran is Pro-Shia.
Which doesn't account for the differential growth rates between Scotland and rUK - as both are Brexiting.....
It is going to take more than a change of leader to get them onboard again.
What has pissed people off is being ignored and patronised. Many voters concerned by immigration have been shrugged off and told that diversity is darn well good for them, and the more of it they have the better. This has usually been from those who benefit economically from immigration the most, and bear little of its costs. At best, those politicians have made noises about needing to be seen to be listening to public concerns - and then done precisely nothing about it, other than pay lip-service to a bit of what they've heard - and then simply re-extolled its universal virtues. At worst, such concerns have been linked to overt or covert bigotry, which is true in some cases, but far fewer than politicians think.
"Turning the tide" could be achieved by a short-term drop of significance for 5 years, accompanied by new national parliamentary controls on migration quotas, provision for an emergency break in times of stress, renewed focus on infrastructure relief for areas affected by high immigration, and a industrial/ education strategy that trains up domestic workers where an obvious imbalance is discovered.
If all that is put in place, that should take most of the heat out of it as people will both feel listened to and in control, and accept net immigration continuing to run at 150-200k net per year in the good years.
But, it starts with respect, and ends with action.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-39501748
Thames Water wanted to build a large reservoir at Abingdon but the planners/regulators turned it down in 2011 and told them to plug the leaking pipes instead.
The company still want to build a reservoir but are unlikely to get permission.
See the latest at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-34017333
https://youtu.be/3jdPGhq2QbQ
Look back over the last five decades, the public have never wanted immigration, they vote for parties that say they'll be tough and who never are
Look at the contemporary polling of Enoch Powells speech. Unprecedented support
Then we had a referendum that for many was a chance to say ENOUGH! And we did
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39514503
https://news.gov.scot/news/investing-in-scotlands-tourism-sector
Deluded businessmen abound !!
In this case, however, I think the market underestimates Melenchon';s chances. I tend to bet on momentum in the polls and Melenchon is the only runner in the field with momentum. I would liken it to a 3m mile steeplechase in heavy conditions. They have just jumped the last fence and the front 3 are staying on at one pace, but the horse in 4th place is gaining ground and is only a length behind 3rd.
Surely not?
VAT on private school fees, whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy, will be seen by middle-class swing voters as a tax on aspiration - something limiting their options for their children. That's not a good look.
Meanwhile, universal free school meals will further erode Labour support among teachers, who loathed Clegg's halfway-house gimmick and who are currently trying to run their schools with fast-reducing budgets. Ask any teacher what would make the biggest difference to their pupils' educational chances and I would be amazed if "free lunch" was ever cited.
As someone generally centre-left in outlook, I despair. I would have expected little better from Corbyn, but I thought Angela Rayner was smarter than this.
The money raised from the VAT won't cover the large cost of providing all these free meals. I am not against the idea of a free meal for all, but it ain't cheap and just whacking a few rich people won't cover it.
In which Polling Digest have a stab at working out which Tory seats might be most vulnerable to the Lib Dems at the next election, if fought on current boundaries.
They've gone for:
Lewes
Kingston & Surbiton
Bath
Twickenham
Oxford West & Abingdon
Winchester
If the yellows were to hold everything they've currently got and take all this lot as well, then they would be up to 15. Regaining Cambridge from Labour looks highly likely, which would leave them with four more gains to find to get back to where Paddy Ashdown was 25 years ago.
* that is, about the existence of the Agreement. His subsidiary claims about Hitler approving the flying of the Zionist flag in Germany are bonkers.
This couple who run a bakery are now expecting their 20th child
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4361092/amp/Britain-s-biggest-brood-growing-AGAIN.html
They have fallen between two stools - the clear options were to not allow an exception for rape victims, or not to have the limit at all.
Just what they deserve!
The problem is partly one of typesetting - they should have confined the heading to "Support for a child conceived without your consent" and then put "conceived without your consent means ..." in a footnote. Small print was invented for a reason.
But it is frowned upon in official circles now.
And imagine the headlines the first time someone makes what she believes to be a legitimate claim only to be knocked back by something in the small print.
Edit: I think I'm replying to Ishmael. One day I'll get the hang of block quotes.
https://twitter.com/stuartgmcintyre/status/849880160174317568
Who wants to go shopping when you've got a joyous & civic Indyref2 to look forward to?
Clearly victim or sufferer is not PC anymore. I better be careful otherwise I might have the thought-mob on me for using the incorrect terminology.
I got in trouble last year for using the term brain storm, which I was told was offensive to those with epilepsy. When I said oh has somebody here got it, it was told no thats not the point. I didn't bother telling them the next day I had similar session with a friend who does and they had arranged it.
The phrase "Labour values" seem to me to be a sort of sick joke because over recent years Labour have shown in myriad ways (the Ken episode being only the latest example) that, when it comes to it, they don't really believe in their values at all, not in any meaningful sense. And if they don't, why the hell should anyone else?
Pro-Government:
Bill Cash (brief)
Nicky Morgan (brief, half of which taken up by her telling us she voted 'Remain')
Gerald Howarth (brief)
Anti-Government:
Stephen Gethins (brief)
Nick Clegg (brief)
Ken Clarke (extended)
Tulip Siddiq (brief)
Mary Creagh (extended)
Claire Perry (extended)
Alex Salmond (extended)
They then showed the clip of ardent Remainers singing the 'Ode to Joy' in te chamber, with the presenter of the programme likening them to the band playing as the 'Titanic' sank.
I shall be complaining to the BBC (not that I expect much)