Pre-budget polls: 13th March - CON 31%, LAB 40%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%; LAB 9% lead 14th March - CON 30%, LAB 42%, LD 11%, UKIP 11%: LAB 12% lead 15 - 17th March - CON 29%, LAB 41%, LD 12%, UKIP 12%; LAB 12% lead 18th March - CON 32%, LAB 40%, LD 11%, UKIP 10%; LAB 8% lead 20th March - CON 30%, LAB 41%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%; LAB 11% lead
I'm sorry, but you are talking absolute garbage. This is NOT a retrospective measure in the sense of IDS suddenly popping out of a cupboard and saying 'Aha! You owe £500 because we've retrospectively decided that the rules we told you about last year should have been different', as you seem to think judging by your ludicrous examples.
Instead, he laid regulations before parliament, and civil servants then told claimants IN ADVANCE that there would be a reduction in the benefit payments made to them in clearly-laid out circumstances.
We now know - but most people, including the government and the affected claimants, didn't know then - that there was an administrative error in those regulations. Fair enough, that would mean, in the absence of corrective legislation, that the claimants affected would suddenly and surprisingly find they were due an extra payment compared with what they were told by civil servants AT THE TIME and IN ADVANCE. The law is now being changed to bring the legal position into line with the intention of the government and with what was understood to be the position at the time.
If you really can't see that this is completely different to retrospectively introducing a criminal law, or 'retroactively amending the last decade's Finance Acts so that income tax was deemed to have been charged at a higher rate' then I'm afraid I'll have to give up on you.
Comments
13th March - CON 31%, LAB 40%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%; LAB 9% lead
14th March - CON 30%, LAB 42%, LD 11%, UKIP 11%: LAB 12% lead
15 - 17th March - CON 29%, LAB 41%, LD 12%, UKIP 12%; LAB 12% lead
18th March - CON 32%, LAB 40%, LD 11%, UKIP 10%; LAB 8% lead
20th March - CON 30%, LAB 41%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%; LAB 11% lead
So around 10.5% is the baseline.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1028/#Comment_1028
It would be like having capital controls between Yorkshire and Lancashire.
I'm sorry, but you are talking absolute garbage. This is NOT a retrospective measure in the sense of IDS suddenly popping out of a cupboard and saying 'Aha! You owe £500 because we've retrospectively decided that the rules we told you about last year should have been different', as you seem to think judging by your ludicrous examples.
Instead, he laid regulations before parliament, and civil servants then told claimants IN ADVANCE that there would be a reduction in the benefit payments made to them in clearly-laid out circumstances.
We now know - but most people, including the government and the affected claimants, didn't know then - that there was an administrative error in those regulations. Fair enough, that would mean, in the absence of corrective legislation, that the claimants affected would suddenly and surprisingly find they were due an extra payment compared with what they were told by civil servants AT THE TIME and IN ADVANCE. The law is now being changed to bring the legal position into line with the intention of the government and with what was understood to be the position at the time.
If you really can't see that this is completely different to retrospectively introducing a criminal law, or 'retroactively amending the last decade's Finance Acts so that income tax was deemed to have been charged at a higher rate' then I'm afraid I'll have to give up on you.