Here's a tweet from the main guy at the office that wrote that report
@davidealgebris Mar 25 More For all our Grandparents who gave their life to build a Peacefull and open Europe, European United we stand Happy Birthday Europe #EU60
They're just mad Federalists, like you. Europe is their Catholic faith, Brexit is Reformation and Protestantism. Conceptually, it cannot succeed. It is heretical.
It's hardly the most objective report.
I was especially intrigued by the assertion that France is rejecting populist politics.
Currently, GDP per capita is about $40,000 per annum in the UK. The economic argument about Brexit turns on whether it will be $46,000 or $48,000 in 2030.
Neither figure is very impressive. The Netherlands, Denmark, Germany or Sweden were in the region of $45,000/capita in 2015.
It gets a bit worse, looking at poor UK regions. GDP/capita in Wales seems to be under $25,000.
Here's a tweet from the main guy at the office that wrote that report
@davidealgebris Mar 25 More For all our Grandparents who gave their life to build a Peacefull and open Europe, European United we stand Happy Birthday Europe #EU60
They're just mad Federalists, like you. Europe is their Catholic faith, Brexit is Reformation and Protestantism. Conceptually, it cannot succeed. It is heretical.
The main man, Davide Serra, operates out of Switzerland, which remains blissfully outside the EU. It's a funny old world.
“The intention of the May government is to say ‘either we get a very good deal, or it’s the fault of the European Union because they want to punish us,’” Barley said, “Which, first of all, isn’t true. The EU and the member states were always completely clear about what a Brexit would mean. The only ones who weren’t clear about it were [May’s] Tories.”
You'd better let the DWP know they've buggered up their form.
Can you show me where on the form it is asking for proof?
Asking someone to prove something entails asking for evidence etc to prove something happened, not simply asking people to sign a declaration that they “believe the non-consensual conception exemption applies to my child.”
Someone saying they believe something to be true is not proof.
“The intention of the May government is to say ‘either we get a very good deal, or it’s the fault of the European Union because they want to punish us,’” Barley said, “Which, first of all, isn’t true. The EU and the member states were always completely clear about what a Brexit would mean. The only ones who weren’t clear about it were [May’s] Tories.”
Mr. G, I'll be irked if it's Melenchon. As long as he doesn't make round 2, that's fine.
King Cole, one aims to please
Mr. Pulpstar, well, with the Kaiser on holiday it would've been a looong grinding down of Turkey.
Shows that England can triumph in Europe. In my previous starts as England I got immediately annihilated one time, and another had a minor set of gains and then hit a brick wall.
Mr. G, I'll be irked if it's Melenchon. As long as he doesn't make round 2, that's fine.
King Cole, one aims to please
Mr. Pulpstar, well, with the Kaiser on holiday it would've been a looong grinding down of Turkey.
Shows that England can triumph in Europe. In my previous starts as England I got immediately annihilated one time, and another had a minor set of gains and then hit a brick wall.
You'd better let the DWP know they've buggered up their form.
Can you show me where on the form it is asking for proof?
Asking someone to prove something entails asking for evidence etc to prove something happened, not simply asking people to sign a declaration that they “believe the non-consensual conception exemption applies to my child.”
Someone saying they believe something to be true is not proof.
So public money is going to be paid out on THAT basis?
You'd better let the DWP know they've buggered up their form.
Can you show me where on the form it is asking for proof?
Asking someone to prove something entails asking for evidence etc to prove something happened, not simply asking people to sign a declaration that they “believe the non-consensual conception exemption applies to my child.”
Someone saying they believe something to be true is not proof.
So public money is going to be paid out on THAT basis?
His theory is that rebels had chemical stocks which were hit by bombs. Even as someone who isn't totally anti-Assad and thinks he may be the least evil option, I find that hard to believe. Another theory which the Russians have aired is that it was a false flag operation to encourage or justify Western intervention - that sounds marginally more credible, though the Western analyses from samples on the ground and observers look pretty convincing to me.
You'd better let the DWP know they've buggered up their form.
Can you show me where on the form it is asking for proof?
Asking someone to prove something entails asking for evidence etc to prove something happened, not simply asking people to sign a declaration that they “believe the non-consensual conception exemption applies to my child.”
Someone saying they believe something to be true is not proof.
So public money is going to be paid out on THAT basis?
Can you get your priest to sign the form to confirm that you were impregnated by the Holy Spirit against your consent?
You'd better let the DWP know they've buggered up their form.
Can you show me where on the form it is asking for proof?
Asking someone to prove something entails asking for evidence etc to prove something happened, not simply asking people to sign a declaration that they “believe the non-consensual conception exemption applies to my child.”
Someone saying they believe something to be true is not proof.
So public money is going to be paid out on THAT basis?
Indeed. I even have this dryer (below) and they printed the decals next to the knob on the wrong side - the dial turns to the right, the decals are on the left. Whoops. Friday afternoon quality control. I fixed it by duplicating the marks on the other side with a sharpie marker.
[Edit - on closeup they have changed that console slightly but this is the decal I have but my control knob only turns clockwise. Maybe I had a model from a changeover in design/components]
His theory is that rebels had chemical stocks which were hit by bombs. Even as someone who isn't totally anti-Assad and thinks he may be the least evil option, I find that hard to believe. Another theory which the Russians have aired is that it was a false flag operation to encourage or justify Western intervention - that sounds marginally more credible, though the Western analyses from samples on the ground and observers look pretty convincing to me.
You're a notorious sucker for war propaganda. So I'll take your take with a pinch of salt.
You'd better let the DWP know they've buggered up their form.
Can you show me where on the form it is asking for proof?
Asking someone to prove something entails asking for evidence etc to prove something happened, not simply asking people to sign a declaration that they “believe the non-consensual conception exemption applies to my child.”
Someone saying they believe something to be true is not proof.
Requiring a signed statement from a professional to whom the claimant has spoken to in a professional capacity with regard to a rape to 'give us the evidence we need to support you further' isn't asking for proof?
“The intention of the May government is to say ‘either we get a very good deal, or it’s the fault of the European Union because they want to punish us,’” Barley said, “Which, first of all, isn’t true. The EU and the member states were always completely clear about what a Brexit would mean. The only ones who weren’t clear about it were [May’s] Tories.”
Except some European officials have said they want to punish us, if not in those exact words. It's true if we don't get a good deal it isn't necessarily the case a desire for punishment will be the reason, it might be May will have done a bad job, but obstruction from the EU, who have their own political concerns (and only a mad person would say a political union is not affected by political concerns), is a high possibility as well.
Here's a tweet from the main guy at the office that wrote that report
@davidealgebris Mar 25 More For all our Grandparents who gave their life to build a Peacefull and open Europe, European United we stand Happy Birthday Europe #EU60
They're just mad Federalists, like you. Europe is their Catholic faith, Brexit is Reformation and Protestantism. Conceptually, it cannot succeed. It is heretical.
It's hardly the most objective report.
I was especially intrigued by the assertion that France is rejecting populist politics.
Currently, GDP per capita is about $40,000 per annum in the UK. The economic argument about Brexit turns on whether it will be $46,000 or $48,000 in 2030.
Neither figure is very impressive. The Netherlands, Denmark, Germany or Sweden were in the region of $45,000/capita in 2015.
It gets a bit worse, looking at poor UK regions. GDP/capita in Wales seems to be under $25,000.
In economic terms though, it's not an argument about very much.
His theory is that rebels had chemical stocks which were hit by bombs. Even as someone who isn't totally anti-Assad and thinks he may be the least evil option, I find that hard to believe. Another theory which the Russians have aired is that it was a false flag operation to encourage or justify Western intervention - that sounds marginally more credible, though the Western analyses from samples on the ground and observers look pretty convincing to me.
False flag is also the standard cry whenever anything happens. If it was to encourage western intervention, I see little sign that people are chomping at the bit to get involved now beyond a few air strikes, so it's doing a poor job of it.
Mr. G, I'll be irked if it's Melenchon. As long as he doesn't make round 2, that's fine.
King Cole, one aims to please
Mr. Pulpstar, well, with the Kaiser on holiday it would've been a looong grinding down of Turkey.
Shows that England can triumph in Europe. In my previous starts as England I got immediately annihilated one time, and another had a minor set of gains and then hit a brick wall.
Helped by France being a bit sleepy, of course.
Someone email me ahead of the next one. Though I haven't played in a while.
You'd better let the DWP know they've buggered up their form.
Can you show me where on the form it is asking for proof?
Asking someone to prove something entails asking for evidence etc to prove something happened, not simply asking people to sign a declaration that they “believe the non-consensual conception exemption applies to my child.”
Someone saying they believe something to be true is not proof.
Requiring a signed statement from a professional to whom the claimant has spoken to in a professional capacity with regard to a rape to 'give us the evidence we need to support you further' isn't asking for proof?
Okay, I'm oot, not worth further discussion.
No it's not, its requiring a conversation it is not requiring proof. Would a conversation be enough to get a conviction in court? No of course not, as that's not proof. *rolleyes*
That is the lowest Le Pen has polled since goodness knows when. She has been steadily slipping over the past 2-3 weeks. There has to be a real chance that either Fillon or Melenchon get the extra few per cent needed to kick her out first round.
Yes, I might have over-egged Macron's chances a little while ago. Those who urged attention to the soft nature of his support were right to do so.
That said, I would still be surprised if it's not a Macron-Le Pen run-off and extremely surprised if Le Pen isn't there. Not only does she still have a reasonable lead over third but she also has the firmest support. I don't see her dropping to third unless either (1) another of the big four suffers a collapse in support, or (2) Hamon's numbers drop through the floor, in favour of Melanchon. That latter scenario isn't impossible but I wonder whether if it did, there wouldn't be a counter-consolidation in the centre, faced with the risk of a Melanchon-Le Pen run-off.
Still, if I got the tip on Macron wrong, at least I tipped Melanchon at 80/1 at about the same time.
As an aside, I was in France this last weekend (hence no Saturday thread from me); I saw remarkably little physical evidence of an electoral activity. A few street stalls / people handing out leaflets, a few posters, a leaflet delivered to the apartment we were staying at (for Fillon) - and that was about it. The election was all over the media, of course.
Is it a coincidence that as soon as The Met police cut the number of "stop and search" for political correctness (led by TMay) gun and knife crime has surged in London? I have a feeling the two are linked,especially since it was consistently falling in recent years.
Is it overly cynical to suggest that the Police have finally clocked that falling recorded crime was not doing them any good in their dealings with the government?
That is the lowest Le Pen has polled since goodness knows when. She has been steadily slipping over the past 2-3 weeks. There has to be a real chance that either Fillon or Melenchon get the extra few per cent needed to kick her out first round.
Yes, I might have over-egged Macron's chances a little while ago. Those who urged attention to the soft nature of his support were right to do so.
That said, I would still be surprised if it's not a Macron-Le Pen run-off and extremely surprised if Le Pen isn't there. Not only does she still have a reasonable lead over third but she also has the firmest support. I don't see her dropping to third unless either (1) another of the big four suffers a collapse in support, or (2) Hamon's numbers drop through the floor, in favour of Melanchon. That latter scenario isn't impossible but I wonder whether if it did, there wouldn't be a counter-consolidation in the centre, faced with the risk of a Melanchon-Le Pen run-off.
Still, if I got the tip on Macron wrong, at least I tipped Melanchon at 80/1 at about the same time.
As an aside, I was in France this last weekend (hence no Saturday thread from me); I saw remarkably little physical evidence of an electoral activity. A few street stalls / people handing out leaflets, a few posters, a leaflet delivered to the apartment we were staying at (for Fillon) - and that was about it. The election was all over the media, of course.
The silence is a good sign for Le Pen. La France profonde has decided and is keeping mum.
That is the lowest Le Pen has polled since goodness knows when. She has been steadily slipping over the past 2-3 weeks. There has to be a real chance that either Fillon or Melenchon get the extra few per cent needed to kick her out first round.
That said, I would still be surprised if it's not a Macron-Le Pen run-off and extremely surprised if Le Pen isn't there. Not only does she still have a reasonable lead over third but she also has the firmest support.
I would not say that a lead of just 2.5% over third placed Fillon in that poll is a reasonable lead. And her support is only marginally firmer than Fillon's support.
Is it a coincidence that as soon as The Met police cut the number of "stop and search" for political correctness (led by TMay) gun and knife crime has surged in London? I have a feeling the two are linked,especially since it was consistently falling in recent years.
Is it overly cynical to suggest that the Police have finally clocked that falling recorded crime was not doing them any good in their dealings with the government?
" Count the bodies " is the most worthwhile statistic for violent crime. I'd accuse you of naivety rather than cynicism if you think plod has only just cottoned on to cooking the crime figures.
That is the lowest Le Pen has polled since goodness knows when. She has been steadily slipping over the past 2-3 weeks. There has to be a real chance that either Fillon or Melenchon get the extra few per cent needed to kick her out first round.
Yes, I might have over-egged Macron's chances a little while ago. Those who urged attention to the soft nature of his support were right to do so.
That said, I would still be surprised if it's not a Macron-Le Pen run-off and extremely surprised if Le Pen isn't there. Not only does she still have a reasonable lead over third but she also has the firmest support. I don't see her dropping to third unless either (1) another of the big four suffers a collapse in support, or (2) Hamon's numbers drop through the floor, in favour of Melanchon. That latter scenario isn't impossible but I wonder whether if it did, there wouldn't be a counter-consolidation in the centre, faced with the risk of a Melanchon-Le Pen run-off.
Still, if I got the tip on Macron wrong, at least I tipped Melanchon at 80/1 at about the same time.
As an aside, I was in France this last weekend (hence no Saturday thread from me); I saw remarkably little physical evidence of an electoral activity. A few street stalls / people handing out leaflets, a few posters, a leaflet delivered to the apartment we were staying at (for Fillon) - and that was about it. The election was all over the media, of course.
The silence is a good sign for Le Pen. La France profonde has decided and is keeping mum.
I read somewhere that there are large numbers of DKs. Are they actually silent Le Pens?
That is the lowest Le Pen has polled since goodness knows when. She has been steadily slipping over the past 2-3 weeks. There has to be a real chance that either Fillon or Melenchon get the extra few per cent needed to kick her out first round.
That said, I would still be surprised if it's not a Macron-Le Pen run-off and extremely surprised if Le Pen isn't there. Not only does she still have a reasonable lead over third but she also has the firmest support.
I would not say that a lead of just 2.5% over third placed Fillon in that poll is a reasonable lead. And her support is only marginally firmer than Fillon's support.
Have to admit it is nice to finally see Macron head up in a poll rather, even if it is just a touch.
That is the lowest Le Pen has polled since goodness knows when. She has been steadily slipping over the past 2-3 weeks. There has to be a real chance that either Fillon or Melenchon get the extra few per cent needed to kick her out first round.
Yes, I might have over-egged Macron's chances a little while ago. Those who urged attention to the soft nature of his support were right to do so.
That said, I would still be surprised if it's not a Macron-Le Pen run-off and extremely surprised if Le Pen isn't there. Not only does she still have a reasonable lead over third but she also has the firmest support. I don't see her dropping to third unless either (1) another of the big four suffers a collapse in support, or (2) Hamon's numbers drop through the floor, in favour of Melanchon. That latter scenario isn't impossible but I wonder whether if it did, there wouldn't be a counter-consolidation in the centre, faced with the risk of a Melanchon-Le Pen run-off.
Still, if I got the tip on Macron wrong, at least I tipped Melanchon at 80/1 at about the same time.
As an aside, I was in France this last weekend (hence no Saturday thread from me); I saw remarkably little physical evidence of an electoral activity. A few street stalls / people handing out leaflets, a few posters, a leaflet delivered to the apartment we were staying at (for Fillon) - and that was about it. The election was all over the media, of course.
The silence is a good sign for Le Pen. La France profonde has decided and is keeping mum.
I read somewhere that there are large numbers of DKs. Are they actually silent Le Pens?
Past French polling has not shown a shy FN vote that the pollsters have failed to account for. If there is any understatement for shyness, I would guess it is for Francois Fillon. But that's a pure guess.
His theory is that rebels had chemical stocks which were hit by bombs. Even as someone who isn't totally anti-Assad and thinks he may be the least evil option, I find that hard to believe. Another theory which the Russians have aired is that it was a false flag operation to encourage or justify Western intervention - that sounds marginally more credible, though the Western analyses from samples on the ground and observers look pretty convincing to me.
Nick, if it was a false flag operation, by whom? You say yourself that it's highly unlikely to be the rebels (presumably of any particular faction), yet the only alternative is that it was some Western power. Leave aside that the West shouldn't even have these weapons (I don't know if some countries do), on a purely military note, they'd need to deliver the weapons in such a way that the Russian and Syrian air defences couldn't see what was happening and report the evidence.
But the moral argument is surely overwhelmingly against accepting the Syrian line. Are we really suggesting that the USA or whoever would chemically bomb innocent civilians, without warning and without any prior political pressure (which would be necessary to make more favourable the levels of support for action)? All in order to loose off a few dozen cruise missiles, which will have a very limited effect in the big scheme of things? Even if we accepted that Trump might make such an order (which I don't, for various reasons), the risk-reward balance is completely out of kilter.
That is the lowest Le Pen has polled since goodness knows when. She has been steadily slipping over the past 2-3 weeks. There has to be a real chance that either Fillon or Melenchon get the extra few per cent needed to kick her out first round.
Yes, I might have over-egged Macron's chances a little while ago. Those who urged attention to the soft nature of his support were right to do so.
That said, I would still be surprised if it's not a Macron-Le Pen run-off and extremely surprised if Le Pen isn't there. Not only does she still have a reasonable lead over third but she also has the firmest support. I don't see her dropping to third unless either (1) another of the big four suffers a collapse in support, or (2) Hamon's numbers drop through the floor, in favour of Melanchon. That latter scenario isn't impossible but I wonder whether if it did, there wouldn't be a counter-consolidation in the centre, faced with the risk of a Melanchon-Le Pen run-off.
Still, if I got the tip on Macron wrong, at least I tipped Melanchon at 80/1 at about the same time.
As an aside, I was in France this last weekend (hence no Saturday thread from me); I saw remarkably little physical evidence of an electoral activity. A few street stalls / people handing out leaflets, a few posters, a leaflet delivered to the apartment we were staying at (for Fillon) - and that was about it. The election was all over the media, of course.
The silence is a good sign for Le Pen. La France profonde has decided and is keeping mum.
I read somewhere that there are large numbers of DKs. Are they actually silent Le Pens?
Past French polling has not shown a shy FN vote that the pollsters have failed to account for. If there is any understatement for shyness, I would guess it is for Francois Fillon. But that's a pure guess.
That is the lowest Le Pen has polled since goodness knows when. She has been steadily slipping over the past 2-3 weeks. There has to be a real chance that either Fillon or Melenchon get the extra few per cent needed to kick her out first round.
Yes, I might have over-egged Macron's chances a little while ago. Those who urged attention to the soft nature of his support were right to do so.
That said, I would still be surprised if it's not a Macron-Le Pen run-off and extremely surprised if Le Pen isn't there. Not only does she still have a reasonable lead over third but she also has the firmest support. I don't see her dropping to third unless either (1) another of the big four suffers a collapse in support, or (2) Hamon's numbers drop through the floor, in favour of Melanchon. That latter scenario isn't impossible but I wonder whether if it did, there wouldn't be a counter-consolidation in the centre, faced with the risk of a Melanchon-Le Pen run-off.
Still, if I got the tip on Macron wrong, at least I tipped Melanchon at 80/1 at about the same time.
As an aside, I was in France this last weekend (hence no Saturday thread from me); I saw remarkably little physical evidence of an electoral activity. A few street stalls / people handing out leaflets, a few posters, a leaflet delivered to the apartment we were staying at (for Fillon) - and that was about it. The election was all over the media, of course.
The silence is a good sign for Le Pen. La France profonde has decided and is keeping mum.
I read somewhere that there are large numbers of DKs. Are they actually silent Le Pens?
Is it a coincidence that as soon as The Met police cut the number of "stop and search" for political correctness (led by TMay) gun and knife crime has surged in London? I have a feeling the two are linked,especially since it was consistently falling in recent years.
Is it overly cynical to suggest that the Police have finally clocked that falling recorded crime was not doing them any good in their dealings with the government?
" Count the bodies " is the most worthwhile statistic for violent crime. I'd accuse you of naivety rather than cynicism if you think plod has only just cottoned on to cooking the crime figures.
Ah but they have been cooking them downwards for a long time now to show how many targets they can meet. It seems to have taken a while for them to realise that a possible response to falling crime is a falling number of police officers.
Requiring a signed statement from a professional to whom the claimant has spoken to in a professional capacity with regard to a rape to 'give us the evidence we need to support you further' isn't asking for proof?
Okay, I'm oot, not worth further discussion.
No, he is right (unless your definition of "proof" is wider than what the word will actually bear). The claimant has to prove that she has told someone that x, and the someone has to confirm that. The guidance for the 3rd party specifically says that
"Please note – by ticking a box you are only confirming that your understanding of the claimant’s circumstances, as described by them, are consistent with the statement next to the box. There is no requirement for you to seek any further evidence to confirm the circumstances."
[The box says "was raped" or "was in coercive relationship].
And the form itself says that "You do not need to tell the third party the name of the other parent. We will not ask you for other evidence and you do not have to report anything to the police."
And here is the rationale for the whole farrago, taken from the guidance form for professionals:
"The government has chosen to develop a third party model approach to verify that claimants qualify for this exception. Approved third parties have been chosen owing to their positions that already support individuals in sensitive circumstances. These are healthcare professionals, specialist support workers from an approved organisation as listed at www.gov.uk/government/publications/supportfor-a-child-conceived-without-your-consent, or registered social workers. Please note that ticking a box only confirms that the claimant’s circumstances, as described by them, are consistent with the statement next to the box. There is no requirement on the approved agencies or workers to seek any further evidence to confirm the circumstances. This model means claimants are not placed in the position of having to give sensitive details to DWP or HMRC officials, but to professionals who can offer relevant support. Please do offer whatever support you feel appropriate. Additional support links are listed at the end of this document."
In other words saying I was raped to a DWP official is too difficult, and it is better to say it to a health professional so they can tell the DWP.
In other words the whole farrago boils down to an elephantine effort to be tactful. What looks like a requirement for evidence turns out to be nothing of the kind in that the test is unfailable.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
No, he is right (unless your definition of "proof" is wider than what the word will actually bear). The claimant has to prove that she has told someone that x, and the someone has to confirm that. The guidance for the 3rd party specifically says that
"Please note – by ticking a box you are only confirming that your understanding of the claimant’s circumstances, as described by them, are consistent with the statement next to the box. There is no requirement for you to seek any further evidence to confirm the circumstances."
[The box says "was raped" or "was in coercive relationship].
And the form itself says that "You do not need to tell the third party the name of the other parent. We will not ask you for other evidence and you do not have to report anything to the police."
And here is the rationale for the whole farrago, taken from the guidance form for professionals:
"The government has chosen to develop a third party model approach to verify that claimants qualify for this exception. Approved third parties have been chosen owing to their positions that already support individuals in sensitive circumstances. These are healthcare professionals, specialist support workers from an approved organisation as listed at www.gov.uk/government/publications/supportfor-a-child-conceived-without-your-consent, or registered social workers. Please note that ticking a box only confirms that the claimant’s circumstances, as described by them, are consistent with the statement next to the box. There is no requirement on the approved agencies or workers to seek any further evidence to confirm the circumstances. This model means claimants are not placed in the position of having to give sensitive details to DWP or HMRC officials, but to professionals who can offer relevant support. Please do offer whatever support you feel appropriate. Additional support links are listed at the end of this document."
In other words saying I was raped to a DWP official is too difficult, and it is better to say it to a health professional so they can tell the DWP.
In other words the whole farrago boils down to an elephantine effort to be tactful. What looks like a requirement for evidence turns out to be nothing of the kind in that the test is unfailable.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Damian Green should bite the bullet and scrap the whole wretched policy.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
And here is the rationale for the whole farrago, taken from the guidance form for professionals:
"The government has chosen to develop a third party model approach to verify that claimants qualify for this exception. Approved third parties have been chosen owing to their positions that already support individuals in sensitive circumstances. These are healthcare professionals, specialist support workers from an approved organisation as listed at www.gov.uk/government/publications/supportfor-a-child-conceived-without-your-consent, or registered social workers. Please note that ticking a box only confirms that the claimant’s circumstances, as described by them, are consistent with the statement next to the box. There is no requirement on the approved agencies or workers to seek any further evidence to confirm the circumstances. This model means claimants are not placed in the position of having to give sensitive details to DWP or HMRC officials, but to professionals who can offer relevant support. Please do offer whatever support you feel appropriate. Additional support links are listed at the end of this document."
In other words saying I was raped to a DWP official is too difficult, and it is better to say it to a health professional so they can tell the DWP.
In other words the whole farrago boils down to an elephantine effort to be tactful. What looks like a requirement for evidence turns out to be nothing of the kind in that the test is unfailable.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
If this is an exercise in botched, elephantine tact, I'd go back to my original point that the form is well buggered up with its 'give us the evidence we need to support you further' bollox. While evidence isn't exactly synonymous with proof, most dictionaries would suggest that they're strongly associated e.g.
'proof pruːf/ noun noun: proof; plural noun: proofs 1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.'
I'd be hard put to explain the difference between asking for evidence and asking for proof, but then I'm not a lawyer.
Why do you want mothers who have conceived as a result of rape to be denied child benefit?
That's ever so slightly disingenuous. The point is, why should you have to prove you were raped before your child can get welfare?
Because the new welfare system allows benefits for two children and no more. So if any more are born, unless it can be proved it was due to circumstances outside the mother's control, they do not get benefits.
Incidentally without wishing to sound all Malthusian wouldn't three be a more logical number than two? It would allow for the replacement rate being more than 2.
Exactly. The problem is the policy, fundamentally, not this humiliating exemption form. Either the child needs the welfare or it doesn't. Whether its mother was raped is irrelevant to its needs. It's simply a disapproval of conception and the birth of children expressed through the limiting of benefits. We don't deny children an education and healthcare simply because it has two brothers or sisters
That is the lowest Le Pen has polled since goodness knows when. She has been steadily slipping over the past 2-3 weeks. There has to be a real chance that either Fillon or Melenchon get the extra few per cent needed to kick her out first round.
Yes, I might have over-egged Macron's chances a little while ago. Those who urged attention to the soft nature of his support were right to do so.
That said, I would still be surprised if it's not a Macron-Le Pen run-off and extremely surprised if Le Pen isn't there. Not only does she still have a reasonable lead over third but she also has the firmest support. I don't see her dropping to third unless either (1) another of the big four suffers a collapse in support, or (2) Hamon's numbers drop through the floor, in favour of Melanchon. That latter scenario isn't impossible but I wonder whether if it did, there wouldn't be a counter-consolidation in the centre, faced with the risk of a Melanchon-Le Pen run-off.
Still, if I got the tip on Macron wrong, at least I tipped Melanchon at 80/1 at about the same time.
As an aside, I was in France this last weekend (hence no Saturday thread from me); I saw remarkably little physical evidence of an electoral activity. A few street stalls / people handing out leaflets, a few posters, a leaflet delivered to the apartment we were staying at (for Fillon) - and that was about it. The election was all over the media, of course.
The silence is a good sign for Le Pen. La France profonde has decided and is keeping mum.
I read somewhere that there are large numbers of DKs. Are they actually silent Le Pens?
Past French polling has not shown a shy FN vote that the pollsters have failed to account for. If there is any understatement for shyness, I would guess it is for Francois Fillon. But that's a pure guess.
Anyone not undecided on LePen is unlikely to vote for her. She is the ultimate marmite candidate. I suspect the undecideds will break for Macron, who is the least objectional, perhaps with some Fillon.
Macron to win first round seems reasonable value to me. Neck and neck in the polls with LePen and much more likely to pick up undecideds. 3.55 on Betfair yesterday.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
And is one of the conditions that mum is not in a continuing relationship with dad anyway? People are really twisting themselves inside out to find something wrong with this.
If this is an exercise in botched, elephantine tact, I'd go back to my original point that the form is well buggered up with its 'give us the evidence we need to support you further' bollox. While evidence isn't exactly synonymous with proof, most dictionaries would suggest that they're strongly associated e.g.
'proof pruːf/ noun noun: proof; plural noun: proofs 1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.'
I'd be hard put to explain the difference between asking for evidence and asking for proof, but then I'm not a lawyer.
I agree entirely with your last para.
It's not asking for evidence, the fact you sign that is the evidence it requires, along with speaking to a professional who confirms no more than that you say that to them.
The fact you say something is true does not meet your definition. How does someone signing that form "establishing a fact or the truth of a statement"? That is what your definition of proof states, but the form is merely them making the statement. Nothing is established about the fact, truth, or untruth of that statement nor is any evidence about the truth of the statement sought.
A statement is made. The truth or untruth of the statement is not sought, the claimant is taken at their word.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
And is one of the conditions that mum is not in a continuing relationship with dad anyway? People are really twisting themselves inside out to find something wrong with this.
Indeed I can understand criticism of the "not being with dad" requirement, though I understand where it is coming from. But that isn't what's getting argued about bizarrely.
If Melenchon's underperformance and Le Pen's overperformance of the polls in 2012 are taken as the benchmarks then based on polling thus far compared to 2012 I arrive at the following % ranges:
Mélenchon [13.38, 19.83] Hamon [7.17, 11.55] Macron [21.75, 26.51] Fillon [16.54, 20.54] Le Pen [22.48, 26.15]
Damian Green should bite the bullet and scrap the whole wretched policy.
Quite right. No benefits just because you've popped a sprog.
There are advantages to the community in people having children.
As with all things, it's a question of balance.
Society does not benefit from the average person producing only 1 child. Equally, society doesn't benefit from the average person producing 5 children either.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
And is one of the conditions that mum is not in a continuing relationship with dad anyway? People are really twisting themselves inside out to find something wrong with this.
What happens if they *do* resume a relationship with the controlling dad?
These mothers might - in desperation - reach out to friends/social workers/CAB and make a completely legitimate claim for CB. At that point, they'd have no intention of getting back with the father - and then a year or so later, once the initial trauma/crisis has past and the support networks have drained away and dad has put on his nice face, be won back over by the controlling father and the cycle repeats.
No, he is right (unless your definition of "proof" is wider than what the word will actually bear). The claimant has to prove that she has told someone that x, and the someone has to confirm that. The guidance for the 3rd party specifically says that
"Please note – by ticking a box you are only confirming that your understanding of the claimant’s circumstances, as described by them, are consistent with the statement next to the box. There is no requirement for you to seek any further evidence to confirm the circumstances."
[The box says "was raped" or "was in coercive relationship].
And the form itself says that "You do not need to tell the third party the name of the other parent. We will not ask you for other evidence and you do not have to report anything to the police."
And here is the rationale for the whole farrago, taken from the guidance form for professionals:
"The government has chosen to develop a third party model approach to verify that claimants qualify for this exception. Approved third parties have been chosen owing to their positions that already support individuals in sensitive circumstances. These are healthcare professionals, specialist support workers from an approved organisation as listed at www.gov.uk/government/publications/supportfor-a-child-conceived-without-your-consent, or registered social workers. Please note that ticking a box only confirms that the claimant’s circumstances, as described by them, are consistent with the statement next to the box. There is no requirement on the approved agencies or workers to seek any further evidence to confirm the circumstances. This model means claimants are not placed in the position of having to give sensitive details to DWP or HMRC officials, but to professionals who can offer relevant support. Please do offer whatever support you feel appropriate. Additional support links are listed at the end of this document."
In other words saying I was raped to a DWP official is too difficult, and it is better to say it to a health professional so they can tell the DWP.
In other words the whole farrago boils down to an elephantine effort to be tactful. What looks like a requirement for evidence turns out to be nothing of the kind in that the test is unfailable.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
That only applies if no parents choose to have third children. Many will, I suspect. So that should mean no stigmatisation.
The USA is unusual that they can let the jury decide the appropriate level of damages in civil cases. Note to the guy's family: please don't take whatever they offer you to go away, it's not anywhere near enough.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
Good point in a world where secrets were always kept and confidences honoured.
If Melenchon's underperformance and Le Pen's overperformance of the polls in 2012 are taken as the benchmarks then based on polling thus far compared to 2012 I arrive at the following % ranges:
Mélenchon [13.38, 19.83] Hamon [7.17, 11.55] Macron [21.75, 26.51] Fillon [16.54, 20.54] Le Pen [22.48, 26.15]
Of course, in 2012 the PS candidate was a rather more significant factor.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
And is one of the conditions that mum is not in a continuing relationship with dad anyway? People are really twisting themselves inside out to find something wrong with this.
We all know that if the government had not tried to accommodate in the way that they have, they would have been accused by their detractors of "ripping state support away from rape victims" or something equally vitriolic.
It's so nakedly partisan, and very easy to see through - those who have a problem with it need to make constructive suggestions rather than screaming about nastiness from the sidelines. In particular the SNP headlines about Ruth Davidson are way beyond usual political discourse.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
Good point in a world where secrets were always kept and confidences honoured.
These sort generally are yes. Once it is set up nobody has any reason to talk about it. The only people who are involved are all professionals whose job it is to keep confidences. No amateurs are involved messing around. The policy of not looking for any proof that the claimant is telling the truth further ensures that this should stay confidential unless the claimant herself is the one who tells people - and nothing can prevent that!
If Melenchon's underperformance and Le Pen's overperformance of the polls in 2012 are taken as the benchmarks then based on polling thus far compared to 2012 I arrive at the following % ranges:
Mélenchon [13.38, 19.83] Hamon [7.17, 11.55] Macron [21.75, 26.51] Fillon [16.54, 20.54] Le Pen [22.48, 26.15]
Of course, in 2012 the PS candidate was a rather more significant factor.
From their last month polling averages the 5 significant candidates were as follows:
Damian Green should bite the bullet and scrap the whole wretched policy.
Quite right. No benefits just because you've popped a sprog.
There are advantages to the community in people having children.
As with all things, it's a question of balance.
Society does not benefit from the average person producing only 1 child. Equally, society doesn't benefit from the average person producing 5 children either.
without children you run out of society in 3 generations
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
And is one of the conditions that mum is not in a continuing relationship with dad anyway? People are really twisting themselves inside out to find something wrong with this.
We all know that if the government had not tried to accommodate in the way that they have, they would have been accused by their detractors of "ripping state support away from rape victims" or something equally vitriolic.
It's so nakedly partisan, and very easy to see through - those who have a problem with it need to make constructive suggestions rather than screaming about nastiness from the sidelines. In particular the SNP headlines about Ruth Davidson are way beyond usual political discourse.
Well, I have a suggestion, which TBH I made upthread and got (slightly) rebuked for it. Just forget the whole idea and leave child benefit where it is.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
And is one of the conditions that mum is not in a continuing relationship with dad anyway? People are really twisting themselves inside out to find something wrong with this.
What happens if they *do* resume a relationship with the controlling dad?
These mothers might - in desperation - reach out to friends/social workers/CAB and make a completely legitimate claim for CB. At that point, they'd have no intention of getting back with the father - and then a year or so later, once the initial trauma/crisis has past and the support networks have drained away and dad has put on his nice face, be won back over by the controlling father and the cycle repeats.
Do we jail these mothers for fraud or what?
Many families have temporary break ups followed at some point by a reconciliation. The rule is that claimants should declare a change in circumstances.
If Melenchon's underperformance and Le Pen's overperformance of the polls in 2012 are taken as the benchmarks then based on polling thus far compared to 2012 I arrive at the following % ranges:
Mélenchon [13.38, 19.83] Hamon [7.17, 11.55] Macron [21.75, 26.51] Fillon [16.54, 20.54] Le Pen [22.48, 26.15]
I think it's worth remembering a couple of things, though:
Firstly, the FN underperfomed the polls drastically in 2015 in both the Regional and the Departmental elections.
Secondly, the PVV faded badly in the last days of the Dutch election, despite having by far the highest likelihood to vote figures. (Interestingly, the PVV and the FN have similar demographic profiles, with the young being by far their largest pool of votes.)
Thirdly, Le Pen's round one vote share has been in long, but slow, decline. She was at 32% with almost all the pollsters in 2015. She has lost a quarter of her vote since.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
And is one of the conditions that mum is not in a continuing relationship with dad anyway? People are really twisting themselves inside out to find something wrong with this.
We all know that if the government had not tried to accommodate in the way that they have, they would have been accused by their detractors of "ripping state support away from rape victims" or something equally vitriolic.
It's so nakedly partisan, and very easy to see through - those who have a problem with it need to make constructive suggestions rather than screaming about nastiness from the sidelines. In particular the SNP headlines about Ruth Davidson are way beyond usual political discourse.
Well, I have a suggestion, which TBH I made upthread and got (slightly) rebuked for it. Just forget the whole idea and leave child benefit where it is.
Some deliberately have more kids in order to get more benefits and we live in a nation that provides unlimited free birth control to every woman via the NHS.
Damian Green should bite the bullet and scrap the whole wretched policy.
Quite right. No benefits just because you've popped a sprog.
There are advantages to the community in people having children.
As with all things, it's a question of balance.
Society does not benefit from the average person producing only 1 child. Equally, society doesn't benefit from the average person producing 5 children either.
How about a society where the native stock average 1 child and hostile aliens average 5 + . Would that work ?
No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
I don't know, that's a packet and a half of fags a week for - what - lying on your back for 15 minutes. Sounds good to me.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
Why would the child even know that this benefit is received? Why would anyone else other than mum and a professional who is bound to keep confidentiality? The funds simply go into mum's bank account every month with nobody involved. The world in general won't even know about it.
These things have a habit of getting out. Disgruntled divorcing Dads for example.
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
How is dad going to find out mum has made this claim when it is confidential?
And is one of the conditions that mum is not in a continuing relationship with dad anyway? People are really twisting themselves inside out to find something wrong with this.
We all know that if the government had not tried to accommodate in the way that they have, they would have been accused by their detractors of "ripping state support away from rape victims" or something equally vitriolic.
It's so nakedly partisan, and very easy to see through - those who have a problem with it need to make constructive suggestions rather than screaming about nastiness from the sidelines. In particular the SNP headlines about Ruth Davidson are way beyond usual political discourse.
Well, I have a suggestion, which TBH I made upthread and got (slightly) rebuked for it. Just forget the whole idea and leave child benefit where it is.
Some deliberately have more kids in order to get more benefits and we live in a nation that provides unlimited free birth control to every woman via the NHS.
And those that abuse they system will not necessarily tell the truth about their children’s conception. And before you say health professionals won’t accept a dubious assurance, as a retired one I’m damn sure there will be enough who will to cover many situations.
No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
I don't know, that's a packet and a half of fags a week for - what - lying on your back for 15 minutes. Sounds good to me.
If Melenchon's underperformance and Le Pen's overperformance of the polls in 2012 are taken as the benchmarks then based on polling thus far compared to 2012 I arrive at the following % ranges:
Mélenchon [13.38, 19.83] Hamon [7.17, 11.55] Macron [21.75, 26.51] Fillon [16.54, 20.54] Le Pen [22.48, 26.15]
I think it's worth remembering a couple of things, though:
Firstly, the FN underperfomed the polls drastically in 2015 in both the Regional and the Departmental elections.
Secondly, the PVV faded badly in the last days of the Dutch election, despite having by far the highest likelihood to vote figures. (Interestingly, the PVV and the FN have similar demographic profiles, with the young being by far their largest pool of votes.)
Thirdly, Le Pen's round one vote share has been in long, but slow, decline. She was at 32% with almost all the pollsters in 2015. She has lost a quarter of her vote since.
I would also add that Melenchon's underperforming last time was perhaps understandable as he was so far adrift that it would have been a wasted vote and therefore some would have transferred to Hollande. However, this time he is very much in with a shout and therefore a vote for him will not be regarded as a wasted vote.
No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
I don't know, that's a packet and a half of fags a week for - what - lying on your back for 15 minutes. Sounds good to me.
No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").
If Melenchon's underperformance and Le Pen's overperformance of the polls in 2012 are taken as the benchmarks then based on polling thus far compared to 2012 I arrive at the following % ranges:
Mélenchon [13.38, 19.83] Hamon [7.17, 11.55] Macron [21.75, 26.51] Fillon [16.54, 20.54] Le Pen [22.48, 26.15]
I think it's worth remembering a couple of things, though:
Firstly, the FN underperfomed the polls drastically in 2015 in both the Regional and the Departmental elections.
Secondly, the PVV faded badly in the last days of the Dutch election, despite having by far the highest likelihood to vote figures. (Interestingly, the PVV and the FN have similar demographic profiles, with the young being by far their largest pool of votes.)
Thirdly, Le Pen's round one vote share has been in long, but slow, decline. She was at 32% with almost all the pollsters in 2015. She has lost a quarter of her vote since.
I would also add that Melenchon's underperforming last time was perhaps understandable as he was so far adrift that it would have been a wasted vote and therefore some would have transferred to Hollande. However, this time he is very much in with a shout and therefore a vote for him will not be regarded as a wasted vote.
Maybe that logic can be applied to Hamon, though. In the privacy of the ballot box, will Hamon supporters continue to back their man, or might they regard it as a wasted vote and go for Melanchon or Macron instead?
No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").
I think you may have misunderstood Messrs Nabavi and L.. But LOL at the Dave Spart act, very good.
Well, I have a suggestion, which TBH I made upthread and got (slightly) rebuked for it. Just forget the whole idea and leave child benefit where it is.
From time to time governments come up with policies that are simply wrong. This is one of them. The fact they seriously propose a form that asks if the mother has been raped just demonstrates the bankruptcy of the whole policy.
As I understand it there was a moral panic about a rare number of parents who deliberately or casually give birth to half dozens of children simply to collect child support, so they came up with this two child cut-off that is arbitrary, illogical and inequitable - always bad adjectives for a tax and benefit policy. To the extent the multiple collection of child support is a problem that needs dealing with, it should be done another way.
No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
More seriously (than my earlier comment), I think we'd agree that if you offered £1m/week for every child, then there would be a lot of children born. And if we required weekly payments to the government of £1m/week for every child, then (virtually) no children would be born.
£13.70, while a small amount (and far less than a child costs to keep), is a small economic incentive to someone to have children, relative to that number being zero, and we should expect more children to be born as a result of the existence of the benefit. The delta may be small, but this is a curve, not a step a function.
No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").
This is one area where Corbyn/McDonnell are actually not populist enough for me. They don't go on about tax dodging frequently enough. They need to take a leaf out of the Right's book (with their constant rants about immigrants and benefit-claimants) and start weaving in a complaint about tax dodgers into EVERY answer they give on EVERY topic, say we could afford anything we wanted if we as a society just finally grew some balls and stopped taking "no" for an answer from those people.
Comments
It gets a bit worse, looking at poor UK regions. GDP/capita in Wales seems to be under $25,000.
'Syria's President Bashar-al Assad says reports of a chemical attack by his forces were "100% fabrication”.’
So. Whodunnit.
Asking someone to prove something entails asking for evidence etc to prove something happened, not simply asking people to sign a declaration that they “believe the non-consensual conception exemption applies to my child.”
Someone saying they believe something to be true is not proof.
King Cole, one aims to please
Mr. Pulpstar, well, with the Kaiser on holiday it would've been a looong grinding down of Turkey.
Shows that England can triumph in Europe. In my previous starts as England I got immediately annihilated one time, and another had a minor set of gains and then hit a brick wall.
Helped by France being a bit sleepy, of course.
https://whiteknightdryers.com/shop/category/white-knight-washing-machines/
[Edit - on closeup they have changed that console slightly but this is the decal I have but my control knob only turns clockwise. Maybe I had a model from a changeover in design/components]
https://whiteknightdryers.com/shop/white-knight-44aw-vented-tumble-dryer/
Based on that Elabe poll, she certainly does not appear to be the surefire1/6 shot that Betfair make her in the final two market
Okay, I'm oot, not worth further discussion.
Main thing for me is Macron making the final two. Anyway, we'll see how things go. Whoever wins, on the main market I'm ahead.
That said, I would still be surprised if it's not a Macron-Le Pen run-off and extremely surprised if Le Pen isn't there. Not only does she still have a reasonable lead over third but she also has the firmest support. I don't see her dropping to third unless either (1) another of the big four suffers a collapse in support, or (2) Hamon's numbers drop through the floor, in favour of Melanchon. That latter scenario isn't impossible but I wonder whether if it did, there wouldn't be a counter-consolidation in the centre, faced with the risk of a Melanchon-Le Pen run-off.
Still, if I got the tip on Macron wrong, at least I tipped Melanchon at 80/1 at about the same time.
As an aside, I was in France this last weekend (hence no Saturday thread from me); I saw remarkably little physical evidence of an electoral activity. A few street stalls / people handing out leaflets, a few posters, a leaflet delivered to the apartment we were staying at (for Fillon) - and that was about it. The election was all over the media, of course.
Is this type of sexuality called formality? And is it legal?
Anyway, not long to wait now.
But the moral argument is surely overwhelmingly against accepting the Syrian line. Are we really suggesting that the USA or whoever would chemically bomb innocent civilians, without warning and without any prior political pressure (which would be necessary to make more favourable the levels of support for action)? All in order to loose off a few dozen cruise missiles, which will have a very limited effect in the big scheme of things? Even if we accepted that Trump might make such an order (which I don't, for various reasons), the risk-reward balance is completely out of kilter.
"Please note – by ticking a box you are only
confirming that your understanding of the
claimant’s circumstances, as described by them,
are consistent with the statement next to the box.
There is no requirement for you to seek any further
evidence to confirm the circumstances."
[The box says "was raped" or "was in coercive relationship].
And the form itself says that "You do not need to tell the third party the
name of the other parent. We will not ask you for other evidence and you do not
have to report anything to the police."
And here is the rationale for the whole farrago, taken from the guidance form for professionals:
"The government has chosen to develop a third
party model approach to verify that claimants
qualify for this exception.
Approved third parties have been chosen owing to
their positions that already support individuals in
sensitive circumstances. These are healthcare
professionals, specialist support workers from an
approved organisation as listed at
www.gov.uk/government/publications/supportfor-a-child-conceived-without-your-consent,
or
registered social workers.
Please note that ticking a box only confirms that
the claimant’s circumstances, as described by
them, are consistent with the statement next to
the box. There is no requirement on the approved
agencies or workers to seek any further evidence to
confirm the circumstances.
This model means claimants are not placed in the
position of having to give sensitive details to DWP or
HMRC officials, but to professionals who can offer
relevant support. Please do offer whatever support
you feel appropriate. Additional support links are
listed at the end of this document."
In other words saying I was raped to a DWP official is too difficult, and it is better to say it to a health professional so they can tell the DWP.
In other words the whole farrago boils down to an elephantine effort to be tactful. What looks like a requirement for evidence turns out to be nothing of the kind in that the test is unfailable.
And it sucks. The exception simply should not exist in the first place, because think about it: if free school meals stigmatise a child (and they do), what is being a third or subsequent child on child support going to do; how is the child going to feel it looks to the world in general, and to the parent who claims extra money to keep it?
http://files.kff.org/attachment/Topline-Kaiser-Health-Tracking-Poll-April-2017
Or Dad finds out Mum has made this claim.
'proof
pruːf/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.'
I'd be hard put to explain the difference between asking for evidence and asking for proof, but then I'm not a lawyer.
I agree entirely with your last para.
Macron to win first round seems reasonable value to me. Neck and neck in the polls with LePen and much more likely to pick up undecideds. 3.55 on Betfair yesterday.
The fact you say something is true does not meet your definition. How does someone signing that form "establishing a fact or the truth of a statement"? That is what your definition of proof states, but the form is merely them making the statement. Nothing is established about the fact, truth, or untruth of that statement nor is any evidence about the truth of the statement sought.
A statement is made. The truth or untruth of the statement is not sought, the claimant is taken at their word.
Mélenchon [13.38, 19.83]
Hamon [7.17, 11.55]
Macron [21.75, 26.51]
Fillon [16.54, 20.54]
Le Pen [22.48, 26.15]
Society does not benefit from the average person producing only 1 child. Equally, society doesn't benefit from the average person producing 5 children either.
These mothers might - in desperation - reach out to friends/social workers/CAB and make a completely legitimate claim for CB. At that point, they'd have no intention of getting back with the father - and then a year or so later, once the initial trauma/crisis has past and the support networks have drained away and dad has put on his nice face, be won back over by the controlling father and the cycle repeats.
Do we jail these mothers for fraud or what?
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/marine-le-pen-can-win-france-says-goldman-sachs.html
Tesco sorry for Good Friday beer advert
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39587226
Jeremy Corbyn says Brexit may 'upgrade our economy'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39588431
It's so nakedly partisan, and very easy to see through - those who have a problem with it need to make constructive suggestions rather than screaming about nastiness from the sidelines. In particular the SNP headlines about Ruth Davidson are way beyond usual political discourse.
Melenchon -2.68%
Hollande +0.86%
Bayrou -1.49%
Sarkozy -0.38%
Le Pen +2.51%
Firstly, the FN underperfomed the polls drastically in 2015 in both the Regional and the Departmental elections.
Secondly, the PVV faded badly in the last days of the Dutch election, despite having by far the highest likelihood to vote figures. (Interestingly, the PVV and the FN have similar demographic profiles, with the young being by far their largest pool of votes.)
Thirdly, Le Pen's round one vote share has been in long, but slow, decline. She was at 32% with almost all the pollsters in 2015. She has lost a quarter of her vote since.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/852533192817029120
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
Edit Spelling. Hangs head in shame!
As I understand it there was a moral panic about a rare number of parents who deliberately or casually give birth to half dozens of children simply to collect child support, so they came up with this two child cut-off that is arbitrary, illogical and inequitable - always bad adjectives for a tax and benefit policy. To the extent the multiple collection of child support is a problem that needs dealing with, it should be done another way.
£13.70, while a small amount (and far less than a child costs to keep), is a small economic incentive to someone to have children, relative to that number being zero, and we should expect more children to be born as a result of the existence of the benefit. The delta may be small, but this is a curve, not a step a function.