They all look safe to me until the election, and then whichever clearly "loses" (however that's defined) will quit, except Farage, who will stay on regardless - he wasn;'t challenged when they got 3% and they'll clearly do better this time.
Indeed, and let's not forget Cameron will have been Party leader for ten years in 2015 so I expect that if he loses, he won't need to be persuaded on his way. Indeed, apart from Churchill, no Conservative Prime Minister who lost an election since 1945 has stayed on for long as Opposition Leader. Most left voluntarily though Heath had to be pushed.
I think that if he loses, Ed Miliband has a chance of survival but that will be predicated on how badly he loses. Kinnock survived the crushing defeat of 1987 not because anyone thought he would win but he did just enough in terms of seeing off the Alliance to ensure not only that Labour were the only credible alternative Government but that the prospect of a Labour Government didn't seem quite as remote.
Given that LD leaders always lose elections, the same applies to Nick Clegg. I doubt he will want to go from being Deputy PM (with all the trappings) to being leader of a small Parliamentary party so short of the continuation of the Coalition, I think he will be gone too.
The more interesting question is whether Cameron and Clegg would want to serve another full five years if the Coalition continues.
Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Did you not read the link? They administer the benefit but it is recoverable from HMRC.
Well if its true that the government pay for the maternity leave I don't see the problem in employing women of childbearing age.
I didn't confuse his comments with single mothers, I just made the point that I thought the govt should pay maternity leave...
Government pay state pensions and big firms may offer a better pension as part of their wage package, why can't the same be done with maternity? Govt pay a basic maternity leave and firms that can afford it can offer it as a benefit to entice women of child bearing age if that's who they are looking to employ?
No. Bloom was talking about one thing, and you then move onto what is apparently one of your personal bugbears. Incidentally, an issue that will also turn off many people when put in that context. Otherwise why did women in the workplace suddenly morph into single mothers?
Good luck in trying to attract anything other than nutjobs to UKIP!
Very presumptious of you, I don't have a bugbear about single mothers, if that is what you are getting at. But why shouldn't the govt help out all new mothers? Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Not presumptuous at all. It was your comment.
And what do you think of Bloom's comments on feminists? I'm married to a feminist (*), and perhaps Bloom would be a more settled person if he had as well.
As I said, you fail to see how his comments, and especially UKIP's failure to rein him in, will harm the party. That will only be one factor in UKIP's support, but it may be significant. It's a dangerous road to take, one that *may* firm up support from the nutjobs, but slow support from the less foaming-mouthed part of the electorate.
(*) Our fourth anniversary today. How time flies ...
Blooms attempt to reduce the birth rate and attract more immigrants is strange, everyone knows that each childless British woman generates two immigrants down the line, is he a mole?
Haha yes think of the immigration surge caused by women of child bearing age working in small businesses not getting paid maternity leave!
What % of the population does that cover?
Around 40% of the female population I'd imagine.
Blooms policies would also skew fertility rates away from women who work towards women who don't.
Can you think why he wants to
a.Increase immigration down the line b.Increase the percentage of Muslims in the population
Sounds like a mole to me
40% of the female population work in small businesses? Well I never!
I don't think anyone but yourself and Diane Abbot want either a or b
Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Did you not read the link? They administer the benefit but it is recoverable from HMRC.
Well if its true that the government pay for the maternity leave I don't see the problem in employing women of childbearing age.
Do HMG pay for the entire pay? I thought it was just the statutory element. And of course the employer has to recruit someone else to to the job in most cases. So its not *free* at all.
If it was - then it wouldn't be the issue that it is.
I didn't confuse his comments with single mothers, I just made the point that I thought the govt should pay maternity leave...
Government pay state pensions and big firms may offer a better pension as part of their wage package, why can't the same be done with maternity? Govt pay a basic maternity leave and firms that can afford it can offer it as a benefit to entice women of child bearing age if that's who they are looking to employ?
No. Bloom was talking about one thing, and you then move onto what is apparently one of your personal bugbears. Incidentally, an issue that will also turn off many people when put in that context. Otherwise why did women in the workplace suddenly morph into single mothers?
Good luck in trying to attract anything other than nutjobs to UKIP!
Very presumptious of you, I don't have a bugbear about single mothers, if that is what you are getting at. But why shouldn't the govt help out all new mothers? Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Not presumptuous at all. It was your comment.
And what do you think of Bloom's comments on feminists? I'm married to a feminist (*), and perhaps Bloom would be a more settled person if he had as well.
As I said, you fail to see how his comments, and especially UKIP's failure to rein him in, will harm the party. That will only be one factor in UKIP's support, but it may be significant. It's a dangerous road to take, one that *may* firm up support from the nutjobs, but slow support from the less foaming-mouthed part of the electorate.
(*) Our fourth anniversary today. How time flies ...
Mentioning something makes it a bugbear?! If you like
I can't have feminists on my mind. Happy anniversary, but why keep bringing your missus into the debate?
I think Labour Lib Dem and Tory voters hope that the kind of comments Bloom makes will harm the party, and call people names who agree with them, but you misjudge how most ordinary people, who wouldn't dream of posting on a political debating website, think.
Gordon Brown thought the lady in Rochdale was a bigot, remember.
OGH re Clegg "Coming fifth behind the Greens in the 2014 Euros could be very difficult". Yes and then they could be down to 0 - 2 MEPs. It would set off the panic buttons and remove dozens of paid workers.
Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Did you not read the link? They administer the benefit but it is recoverable from HMRC.
Well if its true that the government pay for the maternity leave I don't see the problem in employing women of childbearing age.
Do HMG pay for the entire pay? I thought it was just the statutory element. And of course the employer has to recruit someone else to to the job in most cases. So its not *free* at all.
If it was - then it wouldn't be the issue that it is.
Neil and Tim are implying that the government pay the maternity leave so its all ok.
If the employer is supposed to pay the full salary while the lady is at home then that's my original point
Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Did you not read the link? They administer the benefit but it is recoverable from HMRC.
Well if its true that the government pay for the maternity leave I don't see the problem in employing women of childbearing age.
Some people are just sexist. Look at the end of the last thread for some examples.
Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Did you not read the link? They administer the benefit but it is recoverable from HMRC.
Well if its true that the government pay for the maternity leave I don't see the problem in employing women of childbearing age.
Do HMG pay for the entire pay? I thought it was just the statutory element. And of course the employer has to recruit someone else to to the job in most cases. So its not *free* at all.
If it was - then it wouldn't be the issue that it is.
Neil and Tim are implying that the government pay the maternity leave so its all ok.
I'm not implying it - I'm pointing you to a link from HMRC that explains how it works in detail.
OGH re Clegg "Coming fifth behind the Greens in the 2014 Euros could be very difficult". Yes and then they could be down to 0 - 2 MEPs. It would set off the panic buttons and remove dozens of paid workers.
No, it won't. I know you're not well-disposed toward the Party but this is just complete piffle.
I'd love to know who these "dozens of paid workers" are that you mention. Could you enlighten me please ?
"I'm married to a feminist (*), and perhaps Bloom would be a more settled person if he had as well."
But, does she chop wood? Our Lithuanian visitors have revealed some interesting family standards - a bit like UK (especially the north) was like in the 50s and 60s.
In Lithuania (just 20 years independent from USSR) men do men's tasks and women do women's.
So men work, do DIY, some gardening and things like chopping wood (for their domestic heating). Men do not do house work, cooking, child care etc. However men do drink a lot and hang out with their male mates and not necessarily with their wives (who also work).
So the Lithuanian men tend to look down on the UK men for what they do domestically. But the Lithuanian women love the UK men for being "real partners in marriage" and what they do domestically and also for going out socially together and dancing with their wives - apparently in general Lithuanian men do not dance very much or well. Funny old world isn't it?
Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Did you not read the link? They administer the benefit but it is recoverable from HMRC.
Well if its true that the government pay for the maternity leave I don't see the problem in employing women of childbearing age.
Do HMG pay for the entire pay? I thought it was just the statutory element. And of course the employer has to recruit someone else to to the job in most cases. So its not *free* at all.
If it was - then it wouldn't be the issue that it is.
Neil and Tim are implying that the government pay the maternity leave so its all ok.
I'm not implying it - I'm pointing you to a link from HMRC that explains how it works in detail.
Ok I don't really want to argue all day about this...
Apologies for not being au fait with every detail....
If a woman on £500 a week takes time off to have a baby and the government subsidise £136 a week off maternity leave, that' seems ok.
If people are expecting the employer to pay the other £364 then I think that's wrong, and can see why small businesses would be better off employing a man
If women add things to the business's that a man couldn't then they should get paid more in the first place
We wait with bated breath for the views of the Northern Echo gardening correspondent
Quite right tim, anybody thinking Andy Burnham has the time to go on manoeuvres when he still has all those lessons to learn is clearly overestimating the man's intelligence.
Brace yourselves for the latest bombardment that will occur by text - 'ID theft/Card insurance'. Personally I think the people that never bought it should get the compensation so that the people who managed to buy both this and PPI will ACTUALLY F***ING LEARN not to buy $&*! PRODUCTS IN THE FUTURE.
Curiously lots of firms think I did buy PPI and have even calculated the compensation I am entitled to. They are wrong of course. And dishonest crooks who should be licensed and banned but that is another story.
If people are expecting the employer to pay the other £364 then I think that's wrong, and can see why small businesses would be better off employing a man
They aren't. So you're 100% fully behind the current system now you understand it.
Haha yes I just said that
I had no idea how it worked, and my original suggestion was the government should pay it, so of course I agree
After a year they'll be asking for more meaningful things like a book to read, basic sanitary necessities, basic foodstuffs etc.
It will certainly be a lesson in what is nice compared with what is needed!
A cake with a file in it?
Going by the list of daft items already requested – I’d not be surprised if they put that in writing.
Silly, silly girls,
I blame the parents for not saying "if a South American gangster offers you a load of cash to fly to Peru and back for him while you're in Ibiza, say thanks but no thanks" before they left Scotland or wherever it is they're from
And what do you think of Bloom's comments on feminists? I'm married to a feminist (*), and perhaps Bloom would be a more settled person if he had as well.
As I said, you fail to see how his comments, and especially UKIP's failure to rein him in, will harm the party. That will only be one factor in UKIP's support, but it may be significant. It's a dangerous road to take, one that *may* firm up support from the nutjobs, but slow support from the less foaming-mouthed part of the electorate.
(*) Our fourth anniversary today. How time flies ...
Mentioning something makes it a bugbear?! If you like
I can't have feminists on my mind. Happy anniversary, but why keep bringing your missus into the debate?
I think Labour Lib Dem and Tory voters hope that the kind of comments Bloom makes will harm the party, and call people names who agree with them, but you misjudge how most ordinary people, who wouldn't dream of posting on a political debating website, think.
Gordon Brown thought the lady in Rochdale was a bigot, remember.
Because Bloom's latest infantile missive was about feminists as well as women in general. And I felt it important to mention that I am, according to one of UKIP's MEPs, someone who gets sand kicked in my face.
Which I can assure you is not true. I'm proud not to be a hard bastard, but a softie couldn't exactly do some of the things I've done in my life.
And do you know how 'most ordinary people' think? Really? I think that you, like the rest of us, travel in only limited social circles. Perhaps yours are more representative of an 'ordinary' person (whatever that might be); perhaps not.
For one thing, roughly half the population are women, and many will have been disadvantaged by the retrograde step he's calling for. UKIP will be losing some of their votes. Some may come back; others will stay gone. For others it will be just another reason to consider not voting for UKIP.
I assume as no-one has forwarded a link to UKIP disowning Bloom's comments, that no such disclaimer has been made?
If people are expecting the employer to pay the other £364 then I think that's wrong, and can see why small businesses would be better off employing a man
They aren't. So you're 100% fully behind the current system now you understand it.
Haha yes I just said that
I had no idea how it worked, and my original suggestion was the government should pay it, so of course I agree
AAARRRGGGHHH ! No Sam No, walk away from that beckoning white light !
Ahead lies only your blogging death as tim tells you for all eternity that you were once wrong and he "taught" you. :-)
Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Did you not read the link? They administer the benefit but it is recoverable from HMRC.
Well if its true that the government pay for the maternity leave I don't see the problem in employing women of childbearing age.
Some people are just sexist. Look at the end of the last thread for some examples.
Did you ever actually rebut the points made about the problems maternity leave (and especially the need to find cover for it) causes to small businesses or did you just cry "sexist" because that's easier?
If people are expecting the employer to pay the other £364 then I think that's wrong, and can see why small businesses would be better off employing a man
They aren't. So you're 100% fully behind the current system now you understand it.
Haha yes I just said that
I had no idea how it worked, and my original suggestion was the government should pay it, so of course I agree
AAARRRGGGHHH ! No Sam No, walk away from that beckoning white light !
Ahead lies only your blogging death as tim tells you for all eternity that you were once wrong and he "taught" you. :-)
At least Sam is willing and able to learn. None of us will get that five days back we spent trying to explain mortality data
Oh Bootle Buddha how can we forget ? We are not worthy, we are not worthy. If only you understood it yourself, you could teach Andy Burnham.
Because Bloom's latest infantile missive was about feminists as well as women in general. And I felt it important to mention that I am, according to one of UKIP's MEPs, someone who gets sand kicked in my face.
Which I can assure you is not true. I'm proud not to be a hard bastard, but a softie couldn't exactly do some of the things I've done in my life.
And do you know how 'most ordinary people' think? Really? I think that you, like the rest of us, travel in only limited social circles. Perhaps yours are more representative of an 'ordinary' person (whatever that might be); perhaps not.
For one thing, roughly half the population are women, and many will have been disadvantaged by the retrograde step he's calling for. UKIP will be losing some of their votes. Some may come back; others will stay gone. For others it will be just another reason to consider not voting for UKIP.
I assume as no-one has forwarded a link to UKIP disowning Bloom's comments, that no such disclaimer has been made?
People can listen to what parties say and vote for who they want Speculating who will be offended by what is futile as we judge by our own standards. what I was saying is that most people on here are more politically correct and react more negatively to unprogressive comments than the wider public.
As for social circles, I have worked at the LIFFE market, in the gambling industry, at Romford Market, all male dominated and barrow boy Ish, as well as studying humanities at Brighton Uni in my 30s... That is quite a wide spectrum but you are right it may not make me any more aware of the difference between ordinary people and political anoraks
Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Did you not read the link? They administer the benefit but it is recoverable from HMRC.
Well if its true that the government pay for the maternity leave I don't see the problem in employing women of childbearing age.
Some people are just sexist. Look at the end of the last thread for some examples.
Did you ever actually rebut the points made about the problems maternity leave (and especially the need to find cover for it) causes to small businesses or did you just cry "sexist" because that's easier?
I didnt think that people saying that women under 35 were incapable of working effectively regardless of their propensity to become pregnant needed serious rebuttal tbh.
It's not the cost of the pay which is the issue for employers, it's the disruption and 'higher' cost of cover during the leave, which can be quite high.
I'm not saying I agree with that attitude, just that it's a real one.
If people are expecting the employer to pay the other £364 then I think that's wrong, and can see why small businesses would be better off employing a man
They aren't. So you're 100% fully behind the current system now you understand it.
Haha yes I just said that
I had no idea how it worked, and my original suggestion was the government should pay it, so of course I agree
AAARRRGGGHHH ! No Sam No, walk away from that beckoning white light !
Ahead lies only your blogging death as tim tells you for all eternity that you were once wrong and he "taught" you. :-)
At least Sam is willing and able to learn. None of us will get that five days back we spent trying to explain mortality data
Oh Bootle Buddha how can we forget ? We are not worthy, we are not worthy. If only you understood it yourself, you could teach Andy Burnham.
I personally am struggling to understand why tim doesn't have a high powered government advisory job.
His talents are wasted posting 16 hours a day on a betting website... a true loss to the country.
If people are expecting the employer to pay the other £364 then I think that's wrong, and can see why small businesses would be better off employing a man
They aren't. So you're 100% fully behind the current system now you understand it.
Haha yes I just said that
I had no idea how it worked, and my original suggestion was the government should pay it, so of course I agree
AAARRRGGGHHH ! No Sam No, walk away from that beckoning white light !
Ahead lies only your blogging death as tim tells you for all eternity that you were once wrong and he "taught" you. :-)
At least Sam is willing and able to learn. None of us will get that five days back we spent trying to explain mortality data
Oh Bootle Buddha how can we forget ? We are not worthy, we are not worthy. If only you understood it yourself, you could teach Andy Burnham.
I personally am struggling to understand why tim doesn't have a high powered government advisory job.
His talents are wasted posting 16 hours a day on a betting website... a true loss to the country.
Prophets are always rejected in their own land, if tim would move he could be PM of Latvia.
On maternity leave, the problem is not the maternity pay, it's the disruption and the absurd asymmetry of the law.
Suppose you have (say) three employees. One gets pregnant, and goes off on maternity leave. You can't replace her - you have to keep the job open, with potentially business-wrecking compensation if you get it wrong (in marked contrast to most other employment-law issues, there's no cap on the compensation if the employer intentionally or unintentionally breaks the rules in respect of maternity).
So, you can't hire someone else permanently, you have to hire a temp. That may or may not be practical - for some jobs it will be fairly easy, but for many virtually impossible. Even if it is possible, it's certainly going to be expensive. To make it worse, you have absolutely no idea when or if the mother is actually going to return; you can carefully plan for a certain date, tell the temp that their contract will end on that date, and then get a phone call from the mother two days before saying she's not coming back on that date after all. You have zero redress, of course.
To make it even worse, the whole cycle can start again a few months later
And that's without two of your employees getting pregnant at the same time.
"We have tracked the public’s perception of the RSPCA as part of our Charity Index. Since the start of December, the buzz around the organisation – a composite score based on the percentage balance of people who reported hearing good versus bad news about the charity – shows a clear and steady decline. The high point came on 19 December – just after the Heythrop Hunt judgment – when the RSPCA had a buzz score of 8.7. However, as information about the legal fees and subsequent media stories about the organisation came out, the buzz score declined until it reached its low point of -0.1 on 16 January..."
Louise Stewart @BBCLouise Independent MSP & former Tory MP Bill Walker found guilty of a catalogue of attacks against 3 ex-wives & a step-daughter between 1967 &1995
Matthew Holehouse @mattholehouse What's the precedent for an outright Tory majority from this position in the polls? Graphic: bit.ly/13T9f4N pic.twitter.com/pIOWKytHhg
On topic: I think David Herdson and others have pretty much nailed it. I agree that all three leaders are secure until the GE. The only real exception is that I suppose it is conceivable that Ed Miliband might decide himself that he's not up to it, but I think that's very unlikely: he seems to have lots of self-belief, Labour are ahead in the polls, and he'll have aides telling him how great he is.
After the GE, I think it's pretty clear that either Ed or Cameron would go if their respective parties do badly - but what if they both do tolerably well? For example, if Labour make progress, but the Conservatives get compensatory gains from the LibDems, we could find ourselves in a situation where Cameron can remain PM in a coalition or some other arrangement, but that an early second election looks likely, and Ed looks as though he might be in a position to win that second election.
All idle speculation, of course, at this stage - the key thing is what happens in the GE.
Why should a small businessman or woman be compelled to pay somebody not to work for six months because of a decision they made themselves that caused to be unfit for work?
Did you not read the link? They administer the benefit but it is recoverable from HMRC.
Well if its true that the government pay for the maternity leave I don't see the problem in employing women of childbearing age.
Some people are just sexist. Look at the end of the last thread for some examples.
Did you ever actually rebut the points made about the problems maternity leave (and especially the need to find cover for it) causes to small businesses or did you just cry "sexist" because that's easier?
I didnt think that people saying that women under 35 were incapable of working effectively regardless of their propensity to become pregnant needed serious rebuttal tbh.
The stuff about being drunk and in love was sexist - the stuff about the burden the law puts on a small company was not, yet you ignored that in favour of the cheap insult. Richard Nabavi has since expanded on the point (shows up at 10:57AM on my browser), are you going to call that post sexist too?
Presumably Bill is looking at the kind of sentence that would result in a by-election (is it the same for MSPs as MPs?).
Would be a juicy contest. It started me thinking though, if Labour did win the seat and that altered the balance regionally are there mechanisms for the list seats to be reallocated or would the losing party just have to suck it? I presume the latter but hadnt thought about it before.
Would the Tories give Cameron a chance to lose a third election?
Dunno. In that scenario he'd have half-won two elections, despite the playing-field being tilted in Labour's direction and in the most difficult economic conditions for generations, which is not bad. Therefore much would depend on the alternative. Switching to another leader of a coalition wouldn't satisfy the Graham Brady tendency, so would the idea be to switch to someone not willing to form a government? It would be very tricky all ways.
isam - "For others it [UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom's comments] will be just another reason to consider not voting for UKIP".
But that wouldn't make any difference. The only net impact will be on those who would consider voting for them. In theory, it might affect the turnout and voting preference of those motivated to vote against UKIP but that dynamic only usually comes into play if there's a genuine chance of the party to be voted against has a genuine chance of winning and a genuine chance of losing, which unless UKIP can start polling topside of 20%, isn't really a consideration.
Presumably Bill is looking at the kind of sentence that would result in a by-election (is it the same for MSPs as MPs?).
According to Twitterdom the Sheriff can only sentence BW for a year max, and it has to be over a year for automatic expulsion. Like so many of our noble representatives, Walker doesn't strike me as the type to be shamed into walking.
Presumably Bill is looking at the kind of sentence that would result in a by-election (is it the same for MSPs as MPs?).
According to Twitterdom the Sheriff can only sentence BW for a year max, and it has to be over a year for automatic expulsion. Like so many of our noble representatives, Walker doesn't strike me as the type to be shamed into walking.
Seems like a light sentence! (Especially as he'll only serve a proportion of it.)
isam - "For others it [UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom's comments] will be just another reason to consider not voting for UKIP".
But that wouldn't make any difference. The only net impact will be on those who would consider voting for them. In theory, it might affect the turnout and voting preference of those motivated to vote against UKIP but that dynamic only usually comes into play if there's a genuine chance of the party to be voted against has a genuine chance of winning and a genuine chance of losing, which unless UKIP can start polling topside of 20%, isn't really a consideration.
My bad editing, but it was Josias Jessop that made that quote, and my reply was under the dotted line
Presumably Bill is looking at the kind of sentence that would result in a by-election (is it the same for MSPs as MPs?).
According to Twitterdom the Sheriff can only sentence BW for a year max, and it has to be over a year for automatic expulsion. Like so many of our noble representatives, Walker doesn't strike me as the type to be shamed into walking.
Bill Walker , ex-SNP , will have to walk. A monster.
Presumably Bill is looking at the kind of sentence that would result in a by-election (is it the same for MSPs as MPs?).
According to Twitterdom the Sheriff can only sentence BW for a year max, and it has to be over a year for automatic expulsion. Like so many of our noble representatives, Walker doesn't strike me as the type to be shamed into walking.
I don't think that is true . 12 months may be the sentence for 1 offense but there are 23 so it could depend if he gets multiple sentences and if they run concurrently .
Richard Nabavi has since expanded on the point (shows up at 10:57AM on my browser), are you going to call that post sexist too?
No, why would I call something that isnt sexist sexist? Do you want me to for some strange reason?
Okay then. I suspect I know the answer to this already, but just to be absolutely clear - are you now saying that it is *not* sexist for a small business to avoid hiring young women because they can't afford to take the risk they'll get pregnant and need replacing, or are you saying it is sexist and small firms should just take the hit because a one size fits all equality standard is more important than business viability?
The problem with so many people here on PB is they analyse everything to death and forget that in the real world outside the Westminster bubble and London chatterati, most people don't give a damn about politics or politicians.
If there was ever a reason to be rid of the Scots nation this tozzah has demonstrated it in spades. Despite the continual drone from Northern-Britischers about leaky taps and snow-filled avenues they dismiss the views of almost 9-million folk and 16% of the UK economy.
Best-rid folks, best rid. Let them squabble about east-west allocations along the M8 within their Edinborough parish hall: We English do not need them and their like.....
isam - "For others it [UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom's comments] will be just another reason to consider not voting for UKIP".
But that wouldn't make any difference. The only net impact will be on those who would consider voting for them. In theory, it might affect the turnout and voting preference of those motivated to vote against UKIP but that dynamic only usually comes into play if there's a genuine chance of the party to be voted against has a genuine chance of winning and a genuine chance of losing, which unless UKIP can start polling topside of 20%, isn't really a consideration.
To be fair David, that was my quote, not Sam's, and is partial.
And it is not as if considering to vote for a party is a static item: parties change, and people change their views of them. Bloom's comments will have pushed some people further away from voting for them.
You can guarantee that as UKIP apparently has not disavowed the comments, they will be mentioned again and again. They are quite poisonous to UKIP. They will not be a deal-breaker, but are a stride in the wrong direction.
Worse, there is a kernel of a point deeply hidden within some of what he says, as the conversation below shows. Sadly, his comments have just made reasoned debate of the issue by politicians more difficult.
Richard Nabavi has since expanded on the point (shows up at 10:57AM on my browser), are you going to call that post sexist too?
No, why would I call something that isnt sexist sexist? Do you want me to for some strange reason?
Okay then. I suspect I know the answer to this already, but just to be absolutely clear - are you now saying that it is *not* sexist for a small business to avoid hiring young women because they can't afford to take the risk they'll get pregnant and need replacing, or are you saying it is sexist and small firms should just take the hit because a one size fits all equality standard is more important than business viability?
My personal opinion (should anyone be interested in it but it's hardly original or insightful) is that Richard identifies difficult issues that we would all benefit from addressing somehow. I'm very clear that the right approach to deal with them is not to weaken employment protections for women though. There obviously isnt an easy answer or it would have been tried, if I had a particularly innovative approach I wouldnt be keeping it to myself.
That isn't the state paying maternity pay. That's the employer paying it and recovering the money from the state. These are only equivalent if you think there is no cost to the employer - in time, money, or diverted effort - in complying with the administrative burden in recovering the cash. It should be needless to say but this is not the case. SMP should be paid by the state directly to the mother to be as a benefit to minimise the inconvenience to the employer.
Genuinely surprised by the polling on this thread - Ed Miliband most likely to leave? Really? Labour never has defenestrated its leaders (although now might be a good time to start!).
And who is going to replace him? I just can't see Yvette - she is not well liked (if you doubt me, see how her majority in Normanton/Pontefract/Castleford tumbled at the last election... 12.5% swing against her.....)
SMP should be paid by the state directly to the mother to be as a benefit to minimise the inconvenience to the employer.
That doesnt strike me as a good idea as it would ramp up the total cost of administration of the benefit and that would eventually fall on employers and the rest of us as taxpayers.
SMP should be paid by the state directly to the mother to be as a benefit to minimise the inconvenience to the employer.
That doesnt strike me as a good idea as it would ramp up the total cost of administration of the benefit and that would eventually fall on employers and the rest of us as taxpayers.
No, it wouldn't. All that would happen is that instead of processing a claim from an employer for a refund of SMP the appropriate department would be processing a claim from the mother to be for payment instead.
Do I take it from this that you are opposed to *any* reforms to SMP that might help the employer, even when the rights of the mother to be are not affected?
SMP should be paid by the state directly to the mother to be as a benefit to minimise the inconvenience to the employer.
That doesnt strike me as a good idea as it would ramp up the total cost of administration of the benefit and that would eventually fall on employers and the rest of us as taxpayers.
Do I take it from this that you are opposed to *any* reforms to SMP that might help the employer, even when the rights of the mother to be are not affected?
You can take it from this that I am opposed to reforms to SMP that would increase the administration cost to no benefit to anyone.
If the state administers the benefit how do you propose they find out what 90% of their earnings are and what the bank account details of the mother are and what the NI number is etc.. without any effort whatsoever?
SMP should be paid by the state directly to the mother to be as a benefit to minimise the inconvenience to the employer.
That doesnt strike me as a good idea as it would ramp up the total cost of administration of the benefit and that would eventually fall on employers and the rest of us as taxpayers.
Do I take it from this that you are opposed to *any* reforms to SMP that might help the employer, even when the rights of the mother to be are not affected?
You can take it from this that I am opposed to reforms to SMP that would increase the administration cost to no benefit to anyone.
If the state administers the benefit how do you propose they find out what 90% of their earnings are and what the bank account details of the mother are and what the NI number is etc.. without any effort whatsoever?
I take your general point, but isn't one's NI number given out by the state in the first place ?
I take your general point, but isn't one's NI number given out by the state in the first place ?
Yes, but while the employer would have that for the SMP claimant on their payroll systems already it's something that a HMRC or DWP administrator would need to ask for if we went for Random's crazy idea of changing how SMP is administered. There's a reason why it has always been administered by employers under Governments of all colours. Because it's a cheaper / simpler way of doing it. Or you could take the view that all Governments just like landing employers in it.
SMP should be paid by the state directly to the mother to be as a benefit to minimise the inconvenience to the employer.
That doesnt strike me as a good idea as it would ramp up the total cost of administration of the benefit and that would eventually fall on employers and the rest of us as taxpayers.
Do I take it from this that you are opposed to *any* reforms to SMP that might help the employer, even when the rights of the mother to be are not affected?
You can take it from this that I am opposed to reforms to SMP that would increase the administration cost to no benefit to anyone.
If the state administers the benefit how do you propose they find out what 90% of their earnings are and what the bank account details of the mother are and what the NI number is etc.. without any effort whatsoever?
It's of benefit to the employer, or do employers not count in your world? In any case, your point is objectively wrong. If the state doesn't already have that information they will do shortly because they will be acquiring it for the payment of child benefit - this is *maternity* pay, remember? Simply acquiring the information 9 months earlier is not a net increase in administrative workload. At worst, the only net change in administrative workload will be on the mother to be to fill out a claim form. I really don't understand why this is an unfair burden, she's the one getting the money after all.
"...Swathes of blue-collar working class voters, mainly in the north of England, will turn out to vote Labour in any election come what may, so the logic goes. It is the Labour Party, after all, and the "clue is in the name" - it is the party of labour, the working classes. The problem is that increasingly it isn’t. Or at least it isn’t representative of working class opinion in the sense it once was. On many economic questions the left may represent the interests of the working class more effectively than the right, but, socially, the values of the traditional working class are increasingly at odds with those of the liberal or 'progressive' left.
The main divisions one finds are over immigration and welfare. The middle classes tend to associate immigration to the UK with things like fancy restaurants, new music and a Polish cleaning lady who makes a better (not to mention cheaper) fist of cleaning the office than her British counterpart. For the working classes, however, migration is all too often interpreted as meaning stiffer competition for wages and the loss of the sense of community in the places where one grew up. As the authors of the 2012 British Social Attitudes survey put it: "[In recent years] economically comfortable and culturally more cosmopolitan groups show little change in their assessments of economic impacts [of immigration], but economically and socially insecure groups have become dramatically more hostile."
Differences in perception are also stark when it comes to welfare. The metropolitan left readily accuse Miliband of betrayal if he so much as hints that he won’t reverse coalition policies on social security once in office, yet Labour’s core voters are the most enthusiastic proponents of welfare reform - almost half believe that if benefits are cut it will help people stand on their own two feet. Attacking the coalition for embarking on welfare reform (as opposed to criticising the way reform has been carried out) is ironically more likely to repel working class voters than persuade them to vote Labour..." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/working-class-voters-and-progressive-left-widening-chasm
"...Swathes of blue-collar working class voters, mainly in the north of England, will turn out to vote Labour in any election come what may, so the logic goes. It is the Labour Party, after all, and the "clue is in the name" - it is the party of labour, the working classes. The problem is that increasingly it isn’t. Or at least it isn’t representative of working class opinion in the sense it once was. On many economic questions the left may represent the interests of the working class more effectively than the right, but, socially, the values of the traditional working class are increasingly at odds with those of the liberal or 'progressive' left.
The main divisions one finds are over immigration and welfare. The middle classes tend to associate immigration to the UK with things like fancy restaurants, new music and a Polish cleaning lady who makes a better (not to mention cheaper) fist of cleaning the office than her British counterpart. For the working classes, however, migration is all too often interpreted as meaning stiffer competition for wages and the loss of the sense of community in the places where one grew up. As the authors of the 2012 British Social Attitudes survey put it: "[In recent years] economically comfortable and culturally more cosmopolitan groups show little change in their assessments of economic impacts [of immigration], but economically and socially insecure groups have become dramatically more hostile."
Differences in perception are also stark when it comes to welfare. The metropolitan left readily accuse Miliband of betrayal if he so much as hints that he won’t reverse coalition policies on social security once in office, yet Labour’s core voters are the most enthusiastic proponents of welfare reform - almost half believe that if benefits are cut it will help people stand on their own two feet. Attacking the coalition for embarking on welfare reform (as opposed to criticising the way reform has been carried out) is ironically more likely to repel working class voters than persuade them to vote Labour..." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/working-class-voters-and-progressive-left-widening-chasm
But they'll turn out in droves to put the X in the 'right' box :-(
Apologies to anybody here who followed my customary tip that the Test Match would not be a draw.
My excuse is that I was misled by the weather forecasts, not for the first time. Five days of more or less uninterupted dry weather were widely predicted. In fact, according to the BBC weather forecast, it isn't raining now and hasn't been all morning.
Don't their 'forecasters' even have windows in their offices?
Danny Shaw @DannyShawBBC 4m #Miranda Court told police have begun a criminal investigation after examining some of the material seized from Miranda
That enables the Metropolitan Police Service to detain Mr Miranda's property for as long as a Constable considers that it may be of use as evidence in criminal proceedings (Paragraph 11(2)(b) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000), after the expiry of a period of seven days from the seizure.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m George Osborne is working on an autumn campaign to boost public perceptions of the HS2 railway line. http://bit.ly/16PHuQp
Just the man
HS2: Saved, by £600m high-speed detour Ministers were accused on Monday of “bending” the new high-speed rail line to avoid the more affluent areas of George Osborne’s constituency.
If the engineering has been done well, there should be good reasons for any choice of route. If you look at the plans, it seems a sensible enough route given the track branches to Manchester and Liverpool.
Apologies to anybody here who followed my customary tip that the Test Match would not be a draw.
There's some nice lady on a recorded message who keeps ringing me up saying I may be due compensation for mis-tipping - where do I send the form?
Black humour, Richard.
I see no reason to give weather forecasters an easy time. Yes, it is difficult, but they never admit to being wrong. Unlike racing tipsters, you cannot look up their results and assess their accuracy.
I suspect this is because if you could, it would become obvious that they improve on guesswork by such a small margin that no sensible person would pay them for their efforts.
I read that yesterday, and it echoes the point I have made many time on here, only to be rebutted by Southam Observer and today Josias Jessop, not that they are wrong (well I think they are but they're entitled to their opinion) but it is good to see a Left wing journalist make the same point.
The equality that working class people strive for, in my opinion, is equal chance of a good education, to get a job that your qualifications merit and to get a foot in the door... Minority isms don't seem to be a concern for people who are struggling to put food on the table
Personally I still kind of see myself as a Labour voter but i keep getting reminded that they don't speak for people like me anymore.
And just to add to David Herdson's comment to Roger, the newspapers while reporting these developments will also quite often not accept any comments at the bottom of these articles for legal reasons.
"NO DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS ABOUT UPCOMING COURT CASES PLEASE"
For a political site to avoid the biggest POLITICAL story of the year so far which will be all over every other news outlet is frankly bizarre!!
News outlets have lawyers who can pre-screen comment and reporting, which its itself written by people who are supposed to be professionals and know what they're doing. PB is an instant-access site open, more-or-less to everyone. A degree of caution is therefore understandable on matters with potential legal consequences.
"Jaron Lanier, the Silicon Valley philosopher and author of Who Owns The Future?, has shown how technology and the free-flow of information are removing secure, middle-class jobs. Far from being egalitarian, the digital revolution has reduced financial rewards for those in the middle — and concentrated wealth at the very top. While outsourcing of clerical work is hardly new, it has started to affect the middle office — not just the back office. Once, it was production-line workers who found themselves laid off and their jobs shipped to the Far East. Now it’s research chemists, paralegals and clerks who are finding their jobs outsourced. Firms such as Microsoft, Pfizer and Philips increasingly carry out their research in China."
"Jaron Lanier, the Silicon Valley philosopher and author of Who Owns The Future?, has shown how technology and the free-flow of information are removing secure, middle-class jobs. Far from being egalitarian, the digital revolution has reduced financial rewards for those in the middle — and concentrated wealth at the very top. While outsourcing of clerical work is hardly new, it has started to affect the middle office — not just the back office. Once, it was production-line workers who found themselves laid off and their jobs shipped to the Far East. Now it’s research chemists, paralegals and clerks who are finding their jobs outsourced. Firms such as Microsoft, Pfizer and Philips increasingly carry out their research in China."
yes that is increasingly the case. IT companies for example are hollowing themselves out in this country with continued off-shoring. It highlights a trend my sparring partner on the other side of Warwickshire Mr Southam Observer frequently poses, how do we manage an increasing welath gap ? Especially when those at the top are mobile, have better advice than the government and effectively pay tax on a discretionary basis.
No-one yet on left or right has faced up to this let alone formulated an answer.
One problem is that these days the super-rich think they genuinely deserve to be living on a different planet to everyone else, whereas in the past the extremely wealthy used to be a bit embarrassed about it.
"The BBC licence fee is a poll tax. The figures in the passage above are real, but apply to non-payment of the licence fee, as the paper reported today.
So if, according to the logic of the liberal Left, it is (1) by definition wrong to impose regressive taxes and (2) important to uncover the deep-rooted pathology which lies behind – which explains away – the criminal act: surely it follows that we must abolish the licence fee?
Abolish the BBC poll tax: at a stroke, we would cut crime by a significant amount. And we'd have finally won the war on the cause of that crime, too. Surely the Left would be enraptured?"
"Jaron Lanier, the Silicon Valley philosopher and author of Who Owns The Future?, has shown how technology and the free-flow of information are removing secure, middle-class jobs. Far from being egalitarian, the digital revolution has reduced financial rewards for those in the middle — and concentrated wealth at the very top. While outsourcing of clerical work is hardly new, it has started to affect the middle office — not just the back office. Once, it was production-line workers who found themselves laid off and their jobs shipped to the Far East. Now it’s research chemists, paralegals and clerks who are finding their jobs outsourced. Firms such as Microsoft, Pfizer and Philips increasingly carry out their research in China."
yes that is increasingly the case. IT companies for example are hollowing themselves out in this country with continued off-shoring. It highlights a trend my sparring partner on the other side of Warwickshire Mr Southam Observer frequently poses, how do we manage an increasing welath gap ? Especially when those at the top are mobile, have better advice than the government and effectively pay tax on a discretionary basis.
No-one yet on left or right has faced up to this let alone formulated an answer.
We've talked about this many many times on PB. Globalisation means that we simply are in a race for jobs and competition with the entire word. We have some inbuilt advantages, our language, and our education, but those advantages are being quickly eroded.
It will likely mean that for the next few decades, western countries are going to continue to suffer and struggle whils the leaner more hungry countries and residents of those countries catch up. We've seen evidence of this time and time again in immigration and jobs. UK-born labour not taking jobs which the hungrier and cheaper immigrant labour wants.
Comments
I think that if he loses, Ed Miliband has a chance of survival but that will be predicated on how badly he loses. Kinnock survived the crushing defeat of 1987 not because anyone thought he would win but he did just enough in terms of seeing off the Alliance to ensure not only that Labour were the only credible alternative Government but that the prospect of a Labour Government didn't seem quite as remote.
Given that LD leaders always lose elections, the same applies to Nick Clegg. I doubt he will want to go from being Deputy PM (with all the trappings) to being leader of a small Parliamentary party so short of the continuation of the Coalition, I think he will be gone too.
The more interesting question is whether Cameron and Clegg would want to serve another full five years if the Coalition continues.
And what do you think of Bloom's comments on feminists? I'm married to a feminist (*), and perhaps Bloom would be a more settled person if he had as well.
As I said, you fail to see how his comments, and especially UKIP's failure to rein him in, will harm the party. That will only be one factor in UKIP's support, but it may be significant. It's a dangerous road to take, one that *may* firm up support from the nutjobs, but slow support from the less foaming-mouthed part of the electorate.
(*) Our fourth anniversary today. How time flies ...
40% of the female population work in small businesses? Well I never!
I don't think anyone but yourself and Diane Abbot want either a or b
If it was - then it wouldn't be the issue that it is.
https://twitpic.com/show/full/d9npcc
I can't have feminists on my mind. Happy anniversary, but why keep bringing your missus into the debate?
I think Labour Lib Dem and Tory voters hope that the kind of comments Bloom makes will harm the party, and call people names who agree with them, but you misjudge how most ordinary people, who wouldn't dream of posting on a political debating website, think.
Gordon Brown thought the lady in Rochdale was a bigot, remember.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/news-opinion/paddy-shennan-andy-burnham-not-5759847
Would asking a woman if she "had mustard in her pantry" be regarded as suggestive?
If the employer is supposed to pay the full salary while the lady is at home then that's my original point
I'd love to know who these "dozens of paid workers" are that you mention. Could you enlighten me please ?
"I'm married to a feminist (*), and perhaps Bloom would be a more settled person if he had as well."
But, does she chop wood?
Our Lithuanian visitors have revealed some interesting family standards - a bit like UK (especially the north) was like in the 50s and 60s.
In Lithuania (just 20 years independent from USSR) men do men's tasks and women do women's.
So men work, do DIY, some gardening and things like chopping wood (for their domestic heating). Men do not do house work, cooking, child care etc. However men do drink a lot and hang out with their male mates and not necessarily with their wives (who also work).
So the Lithuanian men tend to look down on the UK men for what they do domestically. But the Lithuanian women love the UK men for being "real partners in marriage" and what they do domestically and also for going out socially together and dancing with their wives - apparently in general Lithuanian men do not dance very much or well. Funny old world isn't it?
Ok I don't really want to argue all day about this...
Apologies for not being au fait with every detail....
If a woman on £500 a week takes time off to have a baby and the government subsidise £136 a week off maternity leave, that' seems ok.
If people are expecting the employer to pay the other £364 then I think that's wrong, and can see why small businesses would be better off employing a man
If women add things to the business's that a man couldn't then they should get paid more in the first place
After a year they'll be asking for more meaningful things like a book to read, basic sanitary necessities, basic foodstuffs etc.
It will certainly be a lesson in what is nice compared with what is needed!
So it seems!
Silly, silly girls,
I had no idea how it worked, and my original suggestion was the government should pay it, so of course I agree
24 and counting - Brian Wilson is latest Labour figure to attack Ed telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10258080/Dire-to-disappointing-the-verdict-on-Miliband.html
How were they meant to know?
Which I can assure you is not true. I'm proud not to be a hard bastard, but a softie couldn't exactly do some of the things I've done in my life.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-mep-godfrey-bloom-disparages-women-drivers-feminists-and-mildmannered-men-8777141.html
And do you know how 'most ordinary people' think? Really? I think that you, like the rest of us, travel in only limited social circles. Perhaps yours are more representative of an 'ordinary' person (whatever that might be); perhaps not.
For one thing, roughly half the population are women, and many will have been disadvantaged by the retrograde step he's calling for. UKIP will be losing some of their votes. Some may come back; others will stay gone. For others it will be just another reason to consider not voting for UKIP.
I assume as no-one has forwarded a link to UKIP disowning Bloom's comments, that no such disclaimer has been made?
Total number of NEETs 16-19 now 168,000 - down 1.4% on the year - and lowest for a decade
Ahead lies only your blogging death as tim tells you for all eternity that you were once wrong and he "taught" you. :-)
Because Bloom's latest infantile missive was about feminists as well as women in general. And I felt it important to mention that I am, according to one of UKIP's MEPs, someone who gets sand kicked in my face.
Which I can assure you is not true. I'm proud not to be a hard bastard, but a softie couldn't exactly do some of the things I've done in my life.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-mep-godfrey-bloom-disparages-women-drivers-feminists-and-mildmannered-men-8777141.html
And do you know how 'most ordinary people' think? Really? I think that you, like the rest of us, travel in only limited social circles. Perhaps yours are more representative of an 'ordinary' person (whatever that might be); perhaps not.
For one thing, roughly half the population are women, and many will have been disadvantaged by the retrograde step he's calling for. UKIP will be losing some of their votes. Some may come back; others will stay gone. For others it will be just another reason to consider not voting for UKIP.
I assume as no-one has forwarded a link to UKIP disowning Bloom's comments, that no such disclaimer has been made?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
People can listen to what parties say and vote for who they want Speculating who will be offended by what is futile as we judge by our own standards. what I was saying is that most people on here are more politically correct and react more negatively to unprogressive comments than the wider public.
As for social circles, I have worked at the LIFFE market, in the gambling industry, at Romford Market, all male dominated and barrow boy Ish, as well as studying humanities at Brighton Uni in my 30s... That is quite a wide spectrum but you are right it may not make me any more aware of the difference between ordinary people and political anoraks
I'm not saying I agree with that attitude, just that it's a real one.
His talents are wasted posting 16 hours a day on a betting website... a true loss to the country.
Suppose you have (say) three employees. One gets pregnant, and goes off on maternity leave. You can't replace her - you have to keep the job open, with potentially business-wrecking compensation if you get it wrong (in marked contrast to most other employment-law issues, there's no cap on the compensation if the employer intentionally or unintentionally breaks the rules in respect of maternity).
So, you can't hire someone else permanently, you have to hire a temp. That may or may not be practical - for some jobs it will be fairly easy, but for many virtually impossible. Even if it is possible, it's certainly going to be expensive. To make it worse, you have absolutely no idea when or if the mother is actually going to return; you can carefully plan for a certain date, tell the temp that their contract will end on that date, and then get a phone call from the mother two days before saying she's not coming back on that date after all. You have zero redress, of course.
To make it even worse, the whole cycle can start again a few months later
And that's without two of your employees getting pregnant at the same time.
It's an unmitigated disaster for a small company.
"We have tracked the public’s perception of the RSPCA as part of our Charity Index. Since the start of December, the buzz around the organisation – a composite score based on the percentage balance of people who reported hearing good versus bad news about the charity – shows a clear and steady decline. The high point came on 19 December – just after the Heythrop Hunt judgment – when the RSPCA had a buzz score of 8.7. However, as information about the legal fees and subsequent media stories about the organisation came out, the buzz score declined until it reached its low point of -0.1 on 16 January..."
The graph http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/news/NST/richedit/graph 1.jpg
What can I say, I was shocked, shocked I tell you, to see you repost a tweet you didnt fully understand.
@mattholehouse
What's the precedent for an outright Tory majority from this position in the polls? Graphic: bit.ly/13T9f4N pic.twitter.com/pIOWKytHhg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSQ7TA-CUAAmETo.jpg:small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSQ7t2RIQAAZKTO.jpg:large
After the GE, I think it's pretty clear that either Ed or Cameron would go if their respective parties do badly - but what if they both do tolerably well? For example, if Labour make progress, but the Conservatives get compensatory gains from the LibDems, we could find ourselves in a situation where Cameron can remain PM in a coalition or some other arrangement, but that an early second election looks likely, and Ed looks as though he might be in a position to win that second election.
All idle speculation, of course, at this stage - the key thing is what happens in the GE.
Are the points one/two months behind? years? Something else?
Would be a juicy contest. It started me thinking though, if Labour did win the seat and that altered the balance regionally are there mechanisms for the list seats to be reallocated or would the losing party just have to suck it? I presume the latter but hadnt thought about it before.
Yes, that's why I called it sexist, see? No, why would I call something that isnt sexist sexist? Do you want me to for some strange reason?
This sounds like an intriguing suggestion that I haven't considered before.
Does anyone have any details they could link me to?
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/payerti/employee/statutory-pay/smp-overview.htm
But that wouldn't make any difference. The only net impact will be on those who would consider voting for them. In theory, it might affect the turnout and voting preference of those motivated to vote against UKIP but that dynamic only usually comes into play if there's a genuine chance of the party to be voted against has a genuine chance of winning and a genuine chance of losing, which unless UKIP can start polling topside of 20%, isn't really a consideration.
"We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it "- Jean-Claude Juncker
http://news.stv.tv/east-central/236950-msp-bill-walker-found-guilty-of-string-of-domestic-abuse-over-28-years/
Best-rid folks, best rid. Let them squabble about east-west allocations along the M8 within their Edinborough parish hall: We English do not need them and their like.....
And it is not as if considering to vote for a party is a static item: parties change, and people change their views of them. Bloom's comments will have pushed some people further away from voting for them.
You can guarantee that as UKIP apparently has not disavowed the comments, they will be mentioned again and again. They are quite poisonous to UKIP. They will not be a deal-breaker, but are a stride in the wrong direction.
Worse, there is a kernel of a point deeply hidden within some of what he says, as the conversation below shows. Sadly, his comments have just made reasoned debate of the issue by politicians more difficult.
And who is going to replace him? I just can't see Yvette - she is not well liked (if you doubt me, see how her majority in Normanton/Pontefract/Castleford tumbled at the last election... 12.5% swing against her.....)
Do I take it from this that you are opposed to *any* reforms to SMP that might help the employer, even when the rights of the mother to be are not affected?
If the state administers the benefit how do you propose they find out what 90% of their earnings are and what the bank account details of the mother are and what the NI number is etc.. without any effort whatsoever?
You can take it from this that I am opposed to reforms to SMP that would increase the administration cost to no benefit to anyone.
If the state administers the benefit how do you propose they find out what 90% of their earnings are and what the bank account details of the mother are and what the NI number is etc.. without any effort whatsoever?
It's of benefit to the employer, or do employers not count in your world? In any case, your point is objectively wrong. If the state doesn't already have that information they will do shortly because they will be acquiring it for the payment of child benefit - this is *maternity* pay, remember? Simply acquiring the information 9 months earlier is not a net increase in administrative workload. At worst, the only net change in administrative workload will be on the mother to be to fill out a claim form. I really don't understand why this is an unfair burden, she's the one getting the money after all.
"...Swathes of blue-collar working class voters, mainly in the north of England, will turn out to vote Labour in any election come what may, so the logic goes. It is the Labour Party, after all, and the "clue is in the name" - it is the party of labour, the working classes. The problem is that increasingly it isn’t. Or at least it isn’t representative of working class opinion in the sense it once was. On many economic questions the left may represent the interests of the working class more effectively than the right, but, socially, the values of the traditional working class are increasingly at odds with those of the liberal or 'progressive' left.
The main divisions one finds are over immigration and welfare. The middle classes tend to associate immigration to the UK with things like fancy restaurants, new music and a Polish cleaning lady who makes a better (not to mention cheaper) fist of cleaning the office than her British counterpart. For the working classes, however, migration is all too often interpreted as meaning stiffer competition for wages and the loss of the sense of community in the places where one grew up. As the authors of the 2012 British Social Attitudes survey put it: "[In recent years] economically comfortable and culturally more cosmopolitan groups show little change in their assessments of economic impacts [of immigration], but economically and socially insecure groups have become dramatically more hostile."
Differences in perception are also stark when it comes to welfare. The metropolitan left readily accuse Miliband of betrayal if he so much as hints that he won’t reverse coalition policies on social security once in office, yet Labour’s core voters are the most enthusiastic proponents of welfare reform - almost half believe that if benefits are cut it will help people stand on their own two feet. Attacking the coalition for embarking on welfare reform (as opposed to criticising the way reform has been carried out) is ironically more likely to repel working class voters than persuade them to vote Labour..." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/working-class-voters-and-progressive-left-widening-chasm
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/peter-kellner-poll-ed-miliband-leadership-september-2013/#.UhXz_7yzKcd
that would be the Cheshire/Liverpool branch of Latvian PM's
My excuse is that I was misled by the weather forecasts, not for the first time. Five days of more or less uninterupted dry weather were widely predicted. In fact, according to the BBC weather forecast, it isn't raining now and hasn't been all morning.
Don't their 'forecasters' even have windows in their offices?
Channel 4 News @Channel4News
Bradley Manning says he is "female and wants to live as a woman named Chelsea" - Reuters. #c4news
What did Eric Idle want to be called - Loretta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
You may also want to read the following:
http://news.sky.com/story/1044979/hs2-osborne-denies-meddling-with-rail-route
Although such political interference can occur, as seen in France:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-aide-to-christine-lagarde-shifted-route-of-tgv-to-avoid-mothers-garden-8599757.html
If the engineering has been done well, there should be good reasons for any choice of route. If you look at the plans, it seems a sensible enough route given the track branches to Manchester and Liverpool.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69037/hs2-msg-wm0-zz-dr-rt-40014.pdf
Notice similar things happen on the approaches to Leeds (oh no! there's a dog-leg before Leeds!):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/68988/hs2-arp-000-dr-rt-55001_3-0.pdf
Unless you disagree?
But calling yourself ‘Chelsea’ – has the boy no shame….!
I see no reason to give weather forecasters an easy time. Yes, it is difficult, but they never admit to being wrong. Unlike racing tipsters, you cannot look up their results and assess their accuracy.
I suspect this is because if you could, it would become obvious that they improve on guesswork by such a small margin that no sensible person would pay them for their efforts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXuLzWNxUk0
The equality that working class people strive for, in my opinion, is equal chance of a good education, to get a job that your qualifications merit and to get a foot in the door... Minority isms don't seem to be a concern for people who are struggling to put food on the table
Personally I still kind of see myself as a Labour voter but i keep getting reminded that they don't speak for people like me anymore.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9000951/the-missing-middle/
Con: -3%
Lab: +7%
LD: -15%
UKIP: +10%
On the fact of it, it looks like most of the UKIP increase is coming from parties other than the Conservatives.
http://t.co/4gv3y50RGJ - this has to be the weirdest twist in a story so far.
No-one yet on left or right has faced up to this let alone formulated an answer.
So if, according to the logic of the liberal Left, it is (1) by definition wrong to impose regressive taxes and (2) important to uncover the deep-rooted pathology which lies behind – which explains away – the criminal act: surely it follows that we must abolish the licence fee?
Abolish the BBC poll tax: at a stroke, we would cut crime by a significant amount. And we'd have finally won the war on the cause of that crime, too. Surely the Left would be enraptured?"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100232143/tough-on-crime-tough-on-the-causes-of-crime-we-must-abolish-the-hated-bbc-poll-tax/
No-one yet on left or right has faced up to this let alone formulated an answer.
We've talked about this many many times on PB. Globalisation means that we simply are in a race for jobs and competition with the entire word. We have some inbuilt advantages, our language, and our education, but those advantages are being quickly eroded.
It will likely mean that for the next few decades, western countries are going to continue to suffer and struggle whils the leaner more hungry countries and residents of those countries catch up. We've seen evidence of this time and time again in immigration and jobs. UK-born labour not taking jobs which the hungrier and cheaper immigrant labour wants.