They aren't "buddies" they are bloody tupperwares. For gods sake we can already spot the kids who's parents "worry about them not eating fruit" unless its carved into the shape of the Eiffel Tower without making them carry bits of "eco friendly" plastic around thinking they are "buddies"
Eat your school dinner and STFU. And nobody cares if you don't like potatoes which aren't in the shape of a starfish, eat the bastard things.
Oh my God. Trust me, we send him to school with nothing looking like that. He wants sandwiches, crisps, cookies and yoghurt and he's happy! He eats a banana on the way to school.
When I see things like that I'm glad I live in Wales. Where parents and kids are normal.
I ate nothing healthy growing up. Nothing. I used to spend my school dinner money on four pasties for a quid and kept the rest for ten Red Bands so I could have a fag with my mates. I left school weighing about 10 stone soaking wet. I was fit as a flea and played rugby in the old Welsh premiership at 20. All ribs, jutting shoulder blades and fast feet.
Now my fridge is full of spinach and blueberries and salmon and fresh chicken and I hardly ever smoke (sometimes when I'm drunk) yet I'm fighting the emerging paunch.
Go figure!
It's the revenge on you for hating your dog. Hopefully there's no Korean restaurant nearby !!
I don't hate him. I've just grown to realise that our old relationship was unhealthy. Sleeping with a terrier, having conversations with him and considering what to leave him in a will is not normal!
Classic signs of a terrier serial killer I'm afraid.
Hand yourself in now man .... or have Dog Holmes of 221B Barker Street will be on the job !!
If that's the basis then anyone who doesn't get something someone else gets is being "punished". It's an incoherent argument. Single parents get child benefit just like everyone else.
I find this attitude very offputting - it risks coming across as a hatred of marriage and, by implication, of married people.
I imagine the same people see the withdrawal of benefits as a tax...
I wonder if the humourless anglo-saxon libertarian fantasists will be hot-footing their way to the Netherlands soon seeing as the government there has announced the effective end of the welfare state?
It will be popcorn time as the neo-liberal economic experiment is played out to its final conclusion on our doorstep. With predictable consequences (none of them good).
Regarding free school meals - an easy open goal for Labour would be to pledge to extend them to say all primary school children - paid for by no marriage tax allowance.
Why are Labour and the Lib Dems so against supporting marriage? Pretty much every other country in the EU has some form of support for marriage in the tax system.
So why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it some sort of philosophical objection to the very concept of marriage? Or something else?
They don't see it as supporting marriage, the see it as punishing single mums...
If that's the basis then anyone who doesn't get something someone else gets is being "punished". It's an incoherent argument. Single parents get child benefit just like everyone else.
I find this attitude very offputting - it risks coming across as a hatred of marriage and, by implication, of married people.
Cyclefree, the argument is that marriage is already given significant tax advantages and that the money should be spent elsewhere.
I do find it remarkable that the independence question makes no reference to leaving the UK. It doesn't even reference CHANGE. A more appropriate question to my mind would have been
'Do you believe Scotland should leave the United Kingdom and become and Independent country'
Are the Yes campaign scared to mention leaving the UK?
It seems a fairly simple question to me. Wasnt the final wording proposed by the Electoral Commission?
Or just do a bit more overtime and get a macbook air...
Or not...
My next buy is probably a macbook air... lovely bit of kit.
Good for you, but suggesting that people do a bit more overtime so they can buy an overpriced laptop is not cool. As someone who has seen first hand the consequences of telling people to work harder or get second jobs to buy expensive stuff, it just doesn't work out...
Sigh,
I suggest anybody who takes advice from an anonymous internet forum without doing their own research is a mug.
Anyway, as to the Air (or any mac laptop) being overpriced... Find the same quality and equivalent tech in a windows laptop for less... any genuinely like-for-like price comparison shows this old saw (that macs are over priced) to be nonsense. Yes macs are not cheap, but they are good. An equivalent "PC" laptop would be just as expensive.
...parents of young children are far less likely to have the wealth of older people and more likely to be hard pressed. So although one group of taxpayers is subsidising the lunches of the children of another group, there is some logic to the arrangement.
Poor children already qualify for free school meals. So this universal entitlement is deliberately targeting middle-class/income, and rich children.
It has been said that one in five infant school children already get free meals. However, few of the parents will be in the upper quartile of wealthy people. Even the higher income parents are losing child credit and are unlikely to have accumulated much wealth since they are younger, have high mortgage repayments and much of their income is taxed at 40% or more.
I do find it remarkable that the independence question makes no reference to leaving the UK. It doesn't even reference CHANGE. A more appropriate question to my mind would have been
'Do you believe Scotland should leave the United Kingdom and become and Independent country'
Are the Yes campaign scared to mention leaving the UK?
In their heart of hearts they don't want to leave the UK - just want a "partner with benefits!"
AveryLP "ONS have released a bulletin today, "International Comparison of Productivity - First Estimates, 2012", which highlights one of the main problem areas of the UK economy.
Here are the key findings:
Key points
• Output per hour in the UK was 16 percentage points below the average for the rest of the major industrialised economies in 2012, the widest productivity gap since 1994. On an output per worker basis, UK productivity was 19 percentage points below the average for the rest of the G7 in 2012.
• UK output per hour and output per worker fell in 2012 compared with 2011. By contrast, these measures both increased in 2012 on average across the rest of the G7."
Since the public sector represent half the economy, I wonder if it is in schools, hospitals etc that the low productivity exists? Just asking.
David
There is very little commentary in the ONS bulletin. Mainly headline statistics backed up with charts.
It is almost as if the ONS is deliberately keeping out of the debate on causes, given the known lack of consensus amongst economists on this issue.
Another reason for the brevity of the bulletin is that there is a range of other ONS releases on productivity which are referenced under para 3 of the background notes. This includes a specific release on 'public sector productivity measures'.
I will follow the trail set this evening to see if I can find some more detailed breakdowns and/or official commentary.
Douglas Fraser writing on the economic implications of Scottish Independence and its share of the UK debt:
"To get from the current and rising UK debt levels (passed on to a newly independent Scotland) to the 60% level required of EU members under the Maastricht Treaty, NIESR says Holyrood would have to run a surplus of 3.1% annually for the next ten years.
However, its average deficit has been around 2.3% (including its geographic share of oil and gas taxation) over that same period of 2000 to 2012.
The gap between that average deficit of the past and the average surplus in the next decade suggests a 'fiscal tightening' of 5.4%. That is, you either cut spending by 5.4%, or you raise taxes, or you do a bit of both.
NIESR points out that would still leave Scotland vulnerable to a drop in the oil price or another recession, knocking its fiscal plans off course (as is the UK at present, of course). In the unique circumstances in which Scotland would find itself, the think tank has come up with an interesting, if provocative, suggestion - Scotland could trade its future oil revenue to pay off the UK's debt.
With some understatement, it is concluded: "There may be significant political limitations to this possibility."
Worth a read - also shows how large the unknowns for Yes voters are.
Financier - the article is misleading, the degree of fiscal tightening is much greater than that. The 5.4% is of GDP not of spending. So, if you think of government expenditure being 45% of GDP, then we're actually talking about cutting spending (or raising taxes) by 12-13%. That's pretty huge.
Regarding free school meals - an easy open goal for Labour would be to pledge to extend them to say all primary school children - paid for by no marriage tax allowance.
Why are Labour and the Lib Dems so against supporting marriage? Pretty much every other country in the EU has some form of support for marriage in the tax system.
So why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it some sort of philosophical objection to the very concept of marriage? Or something else?
They aren't entirely opposed. They support the very generous tax breaks that are given to married couples in terms of Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax. Tax breaks for marriage are good for the upper middle classes - just not for everyone else.
Are you talking about situations where a spouse dies? Personally I don't think that they should be taxed as inheritance as if you're married what's mine is yours. I'm all for redistributing wealth but say a married couple own a £1m property and one of them dies. I don't think they should have to pay inheritance tax. To my mind they owned the entire asset already.
Financier - the article is misleading, the degree of fiscal tightening is much greater than that. The 5.4% is of GDP not of spending. So, if you think of government expenditure being 45% of GDP, then we're actually talking about cutting spending (or raising taxes) by 12-13%. That's pretty huge.
Sadly, the time for those level of cuts (similar to those in the US) is over, we're too close to the election and George didn't have the nerve to call time on tax credits on his first day in office. Too late now.
Regarding free school meals - an easy open goal for Labour would be to pledge to extend them to say all primary school children - paid for by no marriage tax allowance.
Why are Labour and the Lib Dems so against supporting marriage? Pretty much every other country in the EU has some form of support for marriage in the tax system.
So why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it some sort of philosophical objection to the very concept of marriage? Or something else?
They aren't entirely opposed. They support the very generous tax breaks that are given to married couples in terms of Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax. Tax breaks for marriage are good for the upper middle classes - just not for everyone else.
Are you talking about situations where a spouse dies? Personally I don't think that they should be taxed as inheritance as if you're married what's mine is yours. I'm all for redistributing wealth but say a married couple own a £1m property and one of them dies. I don't think they should have to pay inheritance tax. To my mind they owned the entire asset already.
Ummm they don't... transfers between spouses upon death are exempt.
I suggest anybody who takes advice from an anonymous internet forum without doing their own research is a mug.
Anyway, as to the Air (or any mac laptop) being overpriced... Find the same quality and equivalent tech in a windows laptop for less... any genuinely like-for-like price comparison shows this old saw (that macs are over priced) to be nonsense. Yes macs are not cheap, but they are good. An equivalent "PC" laptop would be just as expensive.
I'm really not interested in a mac vs pc dick waving contest. If you like Apple products, that's fine with me.
Regarding free school meals - an easy open goal for Labour would be to pledge to extend them to say all primary school children - paid for by no marriage tax allowance.
Why are Labour and the Lib Dems so against supporting marriage? Pretty much every other country in the EU has some form of support for marriage in the tax system.
So why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it some sort of philosophical objection to the very concept of marriage? Or something else?
They aren't entirely opposed. They support the very generous tax breaks that are given to married couples in terms of Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax. Tax breaks for marriage are good for the upper middle classes - just not for everyone else.
Are you talking about situations where a spouse dies? Personally I don't think that they should be taxed as inheritance as if you're married what's mine is yours. I'm all for redistributing wealth but say a married couple own a £1m property and one of them dies. I don't think they should have to pay inheritance tax. To my mind they owned the entire asset already.
Ummm they don't... transfers between spouses upon death are exempt.
Yes I know but Sean was suggesting that married couples have advantages in terms of inheritance tax/capital gains tax. I don't know what they are so was just asking. It's genuine curiousity.
Are you talking about situations where a spouse dies? Personally I don't think that they should be taxed as inheritance as if you're married what's mine is yours. I'm all for redistributing wealth but say a married couple own a £1m property and one of them dies. I don't think they should have to pay inheritance tax. To my mind they owned the entire asset already.
Regarding free school meals - an easy open goal for Labour would be to pledge to extend them to say all primary school children - paid for by no marriage tax allowance.
Why are Labour and the Lib Dems so against supporting marriage? Pretty much every other country in the EU has some form of support for marriage in the tax system.
So why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it some sort of philosophical objection to the very concept of marriage? Or something else?
They aren't entirely opposed. They support the very generous tax breaks that are given to married couples in terms of Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax. Tax breaks for marriage are good for the upper middle classes - just not for everyone else.
Are you talking about situations where a spouse dies? Personally I don't think that they should be taxed as inheritance as if you're married what's mine is yours. I'm all for redistributing wealth but say a married couple own a £1m property and one of them dies. I don't think they should have to pay inheritance tax. To my mind they owned the entire asset already.
Ummm they don't... transfers between spouses upon death are exempt.
Yes I know but Sean was suggesting that married couples have advantages in terms of inheritance tax/capital gains tax. I don't know what they are so was just asking. It's genuine curiousity.
You already know the situation regarding transfer between spouses upon inheritance, but the same applies for assets. Married couples can transfer assets amongst themselves on a 'no gain/no loss' basis, so can make most advantage of annual exemptions, and lower levels of tax.
If that's the basis then anyone who doesn't get something someone else gets is being "punished". It's an incoherent argument. Single parents get child benefit just like everyone else.
I find this attitude very offputting - it risks coming across as a hatred of marriage and, by implication, of married people.
Why not tax divorce then? £2.88 a week makes no difference to anyone getting married or not it's simple a "signal", in this case from Cameron to the Mail/Telegraph. The evidence based school dinners policy makes a big difference as has been shown.
I remain unconvinced on marriage tax breaks, but on school meals Guido was showing his desperation this morning. If you read to opposition it's just a rant (e.g. TPA):
There is no such thing as free lunch, especially if it is handed to you by a politician. This is a conference gimmick that is a misleading, but all too typical, attempt from politicians to wade in and pretend they are doing something about the pressure on the finances of struggling families by promising subsidies paid for with other people’s money. Sadly it seems like this policy has already been signed off by the Treasury and will cost taxpayers £600 million a year (you can bet that will rise as the scheme is inevitably expanded). In the past Nick Clegg has rightly pointed out that universal benefits are both costly and unfair, but that principled opposition to spreading taxpayers’ money around seems to have been forgotten. The problem with schemes like this is that you tax those on low and middle incomes to pay for hand-outs to affluent families. Even when those on modest incomes do receive a universal benefit it’s certainly not free. They’ve paid for it (and all the bureaucracy that comes with it) through higher taxes.
The cost compared to say expanding the number of people on free school meals has been well established and the idea that free school meals covers everyone who would benefit has been roundly rejected. If the Tories put the emphasis on improving performance, they could make a winner out of this as well - after all, at primary level few object to everyone eating the same thing at the same time and surely Tories even less so.
Or just do a bit more overtime and get a macbook air...
Or not...
Not much call for overtime in my trade, unless someone wants to start setting things on fire for me.
Cheers for the advice (and Daemon). Our Windows machines are clunky because they're a bit old, XP and Win7 OSs, and we just don't use them enough, the odd bit of Photoshop, PowerPoint. We use tablets and smart phones, iPods and PS3s, for everything, streaming music around the house, watching movies, viewing photos. Our portable hard drives/USB sticks plug right into most of the phones, and all of the tablets. My youngest lad watches HD movies on Love Film on a Galaxy S2 phone via an HDMI connection into his TV. The Mrs uses an iPad mini, but I can't get on with it, I use a Galaxy Tablet. We just don't really need a Windows machine, and I just can't justify a Mac, or actually like apple stuff much. I just sometimes need something laptop sized with a keyboard. I might just get a decent Bluetooth keyboard!
£2.88 a week makes no difference to anyone getting married or not it's simple a "signal", in this case from Cameron to the Mail/Telegraph.
The evidence based school dinners policy makes a big difference as has been shown.
Do you have any research data comparing the impact of single parents marrying on the educational achievement of the mother's children?
If such research is not to hand may I recommend the following paper as a starting point:
"Does Children’s Academic Achievement Improve when Single Mothers Marry?" Robert L. Wagmiller, Jr., Elizabeth Gershoff, Ph.D, Philip Veliz, M.A., and Margaret Clements, Ph.D.
Promoting marriage, especially among low-income single mothers with children, is increasingly viewed as a promising public policy strategy for improving developmental outcomes for disadvantaged children. Previous research suggests, however, that children’s academic achievement either does not improve or declines when single mothers marry. In this paper, we argue that previous research may understate the benefits of mothers’ marriages to children from single-parent families because (1) the short-term and long-term developmental consequences of marriage are not adequately distinguished and (2) child and family contexts in which marriage is likely to confer developmental advantages are not differentiated from those that do not. Using multiple waves of data from the ECLS-K, we find that single mothers’ marriages are associated with modest but statistically significant improvements in their children’s academic achievement trajectories. However, only children from more advantaged single-parent families benefit from their mothers’ marriage.
Maybe marriage makes more of a difference than Eiffel Tower shaped fruit bites? If the evidence shows this to be the case, then isn't there an argument to re-route the £600 million school lunches subsidy to the marriage tax relief?
Productivity in service industries is quite difficult to judge. One of the simplist ways to increase productivity in schools would be by increasing class sizes. Would that help? Similarly in my clinic I could bring people back to clinic needlessly for a pointless churn.
How has this report assessed productivity in such areas?
AveryLP "ONS have released a bulletin today, "International Comparison of Productivity - First Estimates, 2012", which highlights one of the main problem areas of the UK economy.
Here are the key findings:
Key points
• Output per hour in the UK was 16 percentage points below the average for the rest of the major industrialised economies in 2012, the widest productivity gap since 1994. On an output per worker basis, UK productivity was 19 percentage points below the average for the rest of the G7 in 2012.
• UK output per hour and output per worker fell in 2012 compared with 2011. By contrast, these measures both increased in 2012 on average across the rest of the G7."
Since the public sector represent half the economy, I wonder if it is in schools, hospitals etc that the low productivity exists? Just asking.
Regarding free school meals - an easy open goal for Labour would be to pledge to extend them to say all primary school children - paid for by no marriage tax allowance.
Why are Labour and the Lib Dems so against supporting marriage? Pretty much every other country in the EU has some form of support for marriage in the tax system.
So why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it some sort of philosophical objection to the very concept of marriage? Or something else?
They aren't entirely opposed. They support the very generous tax breaks that are given to married couples in terms of Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax. Tax breaks for marriage are good for the upper middle classes - just not for everyone else.
Are you talking about situations where a spouse dies? Personally I don't think that they should be taxed as inheritance as if you're married what's mine is yours. I'm all for redistributing wealth but say a married couple own a £1m property and one of them dies. I don't think they should have to pay inheritance tax. To my mind they owned the entire asset already.
There was no spouse exemption, prior to 1972. Over and above this, since 2007, the survivor of a married couple can leave up to £650,000 before IHT falls due, whereas a single person can only leave £325,000. Transfers of assets between married couples are exempt from Capital Gains Tax.
Regarding free school meals - an easy open goal for Labour would be to pledge to extend them to say all primary school children - paid for by no marriage tax allowance.
Why are Labour and the Lib Dems so against supporting marriage? Pretty much every other country in the EU has some form of support for marriage in the tax system.
So why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it some sort of philosophical objection to the very concept of marriage? Or something else?
They aren't entirely opposed. They support the very generous tax breaks that are given to married couples in terms of Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax. Tax breaks for marriage are good for the upper middle classes - just not for everyone else.
Are you talking about situations where a spouse dies? Personally I don't think that they should be taxed as inheritance as if you're married what's mine is yours. I'm all for redistributing wealth but say a married couple own a £1m property and one of them dies. I don't think they should have to pay inheritance tax. To my mind they owned the entire asset already.
There was no spouse exemption, prior to 1972. Over and above this, since 2007, the survivor of a married couple can leave up to £650,000 before IHT falls due, whereas a single person can only leave £325,000. Transfers of assets between married couples are exempt from Capital Gains Tax.
I believe that point in 2007 when that happened was the moment Brown had a sticky moment over IHT.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 1m Portsmouth Labour leader John Ferrett writes to Lib Dem Cl leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson urging he suspend Mike Hancock from council cabinet
Cheers for the advice (and Daemon). Our Windows machines are clunky because they're a bit old, XP and Win7 OSs, and we just don't use them enough, the odd bit of Photoshop, PowerPoint. We use tablets and smart phones, iPods and PS3s, for everything, streaming music around the house, watching movies, viewing photos. Our portable hard drives/USB sticks plug right into most of the phones, and all of the tablets. My youngest lad watches HD movies on Love Film on a Galaxy S2 phone via an HDMI connection into his TV. The Mrs uses an iPad mini, but I can't get on with it, I use a Galaxy Tablet. We just don't really need a Windows machine, and I just can't justify a Mac, or actually like apple stuff much. I just sometimes need something laptop sized with a keyboard. I might just get a decent Bluetooth keyboard!
If you want something a bit fancy then I would have a look at the Tablet Z, the cradle/stand and this keyboard. That would allow you to do semi-serious work on an Android tablet and you would have a powerful tablet with a quad core processor on a long update cycle (to 4.4 at least).
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 1m Portsmouth Labour leader John Ferrett writes to Lib Dem Cl leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson urging he suspend Mike Hancock from council cabinet
Hmm more potential for that by-election.
I dont see how that increases the likelihood of a by-election at all. As there are no criminal proceedings outstanding it's difficult to see how one could arise. A civil judgment so large that it bankrupts Hancock?
Surely Salmond lagging far far behind in the polls needs the debates more than Darling ?
Cameron doesn't need them - no chance he'll agree - none.
Not sure Eck has thought this one through.
Salmond should debate everyone. He should debate Darling, Gordon Brown, and anyone else willing to get up on a podium with him.
The SNP could take Salmond and a couple of podiums for a tour around Scotland looking for people willing to get up to debate the issue with him. And then they can ask the question as to why the PM of the UK doesn't feel that the issue of Scottish independence is important enough for him to debate with Salmond.
Productivity in service industries is quite difficult to judge. One of the simplist ways to increase productivity in schools would be by increasing class sizes. Would that help? Similarly in my clinic I could bring people back to clinic needlessly for a pointless churn.
How has this report assessed productivity in such areas?
AveryLP "ONS have released a bulletin today, "International Comparison of Productivity - First Estimates, 2012", which highlights one of the main problem areas of the UK economy.
Here are the key findings:
Key points
• Output per hour in the UK was 16 percentage points below the average for the rest of the major industrialised economies in 2012, the widest productivity gap since 1994. On an output per worker basis, UK productivity was 19 percentage points below the average for the rest of the G7 in 2012.
• UK output per hour and output per worker fell in 2012 compared with 2011. By contrast, these measures both increased in 2012 on average across the rest of the G7."
Since the public sector represent half the economy, I wonder if it is in schools, hospitals etc that the low productivity exists? Just asking.
Dr. Sox
Will be looking at the linked ONS publications on productivity tonight to see what it has to say.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 1m Portsmouth Labour leader John Ferrett writes to Lib Dem Cl leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson urging he suspend Mike Hancock from council cabinet
Hmm more potential for that by-election.
I dont see how that increases the likelihood of a by-election at all. As there are no criminal proceedings outstanding it's difficult to see how one could arise. A civil judgment so large that it bankrupts Hancock?
Isn't there now an MPs committee power to trigger a recall election?
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 1m Portsmouth Labour leader John Ferrett writes to Lib Dem Cl leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson urging he suspend Mike Hancock from council cabinet
Hmm more potential for that by-election.
I dont see how that increases the likelihood of a by-election at all. As there are no criminal proceedings outstanding it's difficult to see how one could arise. A civil judgment so large that it bankrupts Hancock?
Isn't there now an MPs committee power to trigger a recall election?
There are plans for such a power (for the whole House) but it has not been implemented.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Ed: “I am delighted to welcome Paddy to the Labour Party as our new Deputy Director of Communications"-No more attacks on Old Etonions then
Louise Stewart @BBCLouise Labour Party announces The Sunday Telegraph's Patrick Hennessy will be their new Deputy Director of Communications.
I'm not exactly shocked here - he's the most Lefty hack for the righwing press and a mate of McPoison.
The government and the private sector will also want to trade increased productivity for pay increases. As the economy continues to pick up this will increasing become the 'excuse' to break through pay constraints.
You think that the government is ready to start [selectively] to relax the public sector pay constraints?
The £600-million* for primary-school kids to have a lunch: Could that money not be better spent raising the NI and tax-threshold levels? After such good efforts by the Lib-Dhimmies to reduce working-class burdens**, it would appear perverse that they are spunking cash at underservables as "progressive" policy***: But, then, I have never met a bright Left[MODERATED]....
* And Barnett kick-backs. ** Oh, did I forget. My family were working-class from Lewisham. Apart from getting an education I, well, you can't even think about your failings... *** Leave it to "Wee-FrEck" and observe Scotland as a people who lack "dangly t'ings", innit....
The government and the private sector will also want to trade increased productivity for pay increases. As the economy continues to pick up this will increasing become the 'excuse' to break through pay constraints.
You think that the government is ready to start [selectively] to relax the public sector pay constraints?
I would find that very surprising.
I think the implication of the last spending review and the Government's fiscal targets are for public sector pay restraint to continue for quite a while yet.
Off topic, Has anyone got any experiences of Google Chromebooks? In our house, we all use mobile phones or tablets pretty much full time now, only using the Windows based PC or laptops for the odd bit of Photoshop or PowerPoint. The Windows based machines are a pain in the arse, slow, glitchy, crashy. I can't afford a Mac, but need something a bit bigger than tablet sized occasionally, with a keyboard for typing. Chromebook looks appealing, we already use Cloud storage and printing, and if, as looks likely, Chrome offers Office type software, and the ability to convert Windows Office documents, then it might be a good move for us. Any thoughts?
I'm very happy with my Samsung Chromebook, compared to the old Windows XP laptop I was using. It is fast, the battery lasts ages, and I can do everything I want to on it - all for £229.
Compared to what I would be able to buy running Windows for the same price it's been amazing.
What I would advise is installing Chrome on your current PC, and trying out a few of the web apps to see if they can replace the bits of software you currently use. Then you can see if the file conversion process works ok, and whether the photo editors available have enough functionality for you.
Worth noting that you can also store data on SD cards or external hard drives if you want to keep stuff backed-up, or away from the cloud.
Surely Salmond lagging far far behind in the polls needs the debates more than Darling ?
Cameron doesn't need them - no chance he'll agree - none.
Not sure Eck has thought this one through.
Salmond should debate everyone. He should debate Darling, Gordon Brown, and anyone else willing to get up on a podium with him.
The SNP could take Salmond and a couple of podiums for a tour around Scotland looking for people willing to get up to debate the issue with him. And then they can ask the question as to why the PM of the UK doesn't feel that the issue of Scottish independence is important enough for him to debate with Salmond.
Of course Cameron takes the issue of Scottish independence very seriously. If the vote is lost his premiership would effectively be scuppered as he would be forever tainted as the man who oversaw the breakup of the Union. There are just far more effective and subtle ways of defending the Union than debating with Salmond.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Ed: “I am delighted to welcome Paddy to the Labour Party as our new Deputy Director of Communications"-No more attacks on Old Etonions then
Louise Stewart @BBCLouise Labour Party announces The Sunday Telegraph's Patrick Hennessy will be their new Deputy Director of Communications.
I'm not exactly shocked here - he's the most Lefty hack for the righwing press and a mate of McPoison.
"With 365 days until Scotland's date with destiny, a major new opinion poll for the Scottish Daily Mail found support for independence is evaporating."
Thankfully, those of us south of the border have been spared the bulk of this tedious media campaign. Perhaps Salmond’s strategy of boring the electorate into submission may need a little rethink.
We PB Tories are forgiving sorts, in accordance with the scriptures:
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Luke 15.7
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv Poll @itvnew ComRes: More people disagree than agree when asked-LibDems have reined in "worst excesses" of Tories.<Wasn't that main message?
We PB Tories are forgiving sorts, in accordance with the scriptures:
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Luke 15.7
Given how yummy Mr Hennessey is with McPoison - just read their tweet exchanges - I expect him to be a less able version, this may be a *good thing*.
Lib Dems on marriage tax breaks: most LDs oppose as they feel it's about judging families, and that it's wrong to promote prescriptive forms of family when evidence is inconclusive.
I have, erm, unusual views on family issues for a Lib Dem and support the principle as I accept that marriage brings increased stability, and a stable home is the best environment for children to be raised in. It gives young people a reason to aspire to marriage which I'd welcome. However I see 2 key problems that the Tories will be bashed with unless they deal with:
1 - as stated, a transferable allowance between partners only benefits those where one works and the other doesn't. There's no evidence that this arrangement within a marriage is better than any other, and I'd argue it's to the detriment of the non-working spouse. So if you believe in supporting marriage, you need to support all marriages.
2 - if a spouse is suffering domestic violence, they are financially better off sticking within an abusive marriage. I'd want to see that any partner fleeing evidenced domestic violence in a marriage continued to receive the benefit for say 5 years afterwards, as they shouldn't be penalised for getting out.
If the Tories could deal with these, I'd be a rare Lib Dem in favour.
Can we expect a leak of Eton gossip in the run up to the election ?
"Cameron's tuck shop shame"
I'm waiting for embarrassing photos of Mr Hennessey to appear in a penguin suit or whatever. Still - provided he isn't dressed as a Nazi with lipstick, Ed Balls will retain the crown.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Ed: “I am delighted to welcome Paddy to the Labour Party as our new Deputy Director of Communications"-No more attacks on Old Etonions then
Louise Stewart @BBCLouise Labour Party announces The Sunday Telegraph's Patrick Hennessy will be their new Deputy Director of Communications.
I'm not exactly shocked here - he's the most Lefty hack for the righwing press and a mate of McPoison.
Will he be McPoison come next weekend?
Even someone who acted as reprehensibly as McBride did, can tell the truth about what was going on at the time. I can understand why you might find that truth unpalatable, but there you go.
Remember, we've already learnt one thing from his blog - that the treasury under Labour operated a pour encourager les autres policy on staff. If a leak occurred, make the most likely suspect persona non grata. If they were the leaker, then all well and good. If not, then so what? The important thing is that it might stop a leak next time.
Regardless of how someone's career was hurt.
And Miliband was one of the top three people there at the time (X, Y and Z). Either he knew, in which case it was disgusting, or he did not know, in which case he's exceptionally naive.
It was also due – and I take full credit/responsibility for this – to my Admiral Byng approach to leaks. If anything did appear in the papers that was not from X, Y or Z, I would instantly name a culprit. I’d try and choose someone who was a decent suspect, but their guilt didn’t really matter – it was the assertion of their guilt that mattered. They would be cut out of meetings, removed from the circulation list for emails, and wherever they walked in the Treasury, people would mutter about their demise. The effect of this was to make the actual guilty party feel guilty as hell, and put the fear of God into everyone else in the Treasury about doing any leaking themselves. As for the poor Admiral Byngs, they’d usually recover after a while, and some of them were probably guilty anyway.
"In his new role, Patrick will direct, shape and lead the daily media output of the Labour Party. He will sharpen Labour’s attack stories, improve message discipline and ensure the party delivers a 24-hour news cycle."
Looks like Ed has given up on having policies and is going negative from here on out.
Lib Dems on marriage tax breaks: most LDs oppose as they feel it's about judging families, and that it's wrong to promote prescriptive forms of family when evidence is inconclusive.
I have, erm, unusual views on family issues for a Lib Dem and support the principle as I accept that marriage brings increased stability, and a stable home is the best environment for children to be raised in. It gives young people a reason to aspire to marriage which I'd welcome. However I see 2 key problems that the Tories will be bashed with unless they deal with:
1 - as stated, a transferable allowance between partners only benefits those where one works and the other doesn't. There's no evidence that this arrangement within a marriage is better than any other, and I'd argue it's to the detriment of the non-working spouse. So if you believe in supporting marriage, you need to support all marriages.
2 - if a spouse is suffering domestic violence, they are financially better off sticking within an abusive marriage. I'd want to see that any partner fleeing evidenced domestic violence in a marriage continued to receive the benefit for say 5 years afterwards, as they shouldn't be penalised for getting out.
If the Tories could deal with these, I'd be a rare Lib Dem in favour.
Why would you give a tax break to improve a child's lot to people who don't have children?
To encourage marriage. A strong non-state institution that provides the foundation of civil society.
Regarding free school meals - an easy open goal for Labour would be to pledge to extend them to say all primary school children - paid for by no marriage tax allowance.
Why are Labour and the Lib Dems so against supporting marriage? Pretty much every other country in the EU has some form of support for marriage in the tax system.
So why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it some sort of philosophical objection to the very concept of marriage? Or something else?
They don't see it as supporting marriage, the see it as punishing single mums...
If that's the basis then anyone who doesn't get something someone else gets is being "punished". It's an incoherent argument. Single parents get child benefit just like everyone else.
I find this attitude very offputting - it risks coming across as a hatred of marriage and, by implication, of married people.
Why not tax divorce then? £2.88 a week makes no difference to anyone getting married or not it's simple a "signal", in this case from Cameron to the Mail/Telegraph. The evidence based school dinners policy makes a big difference as has been shown.
There are lots of stats that children do better in stable family units. There are also statistics that cohabitating units are significantly less likely to be stable. The argument is that promoting marriage encourages stable family units and therefore is a good thing with significant benefits in terms of life outcomes for the children. (I'm not aware if anyone has convincing demonstrated correlation vs causation though).
Essentially this is a signal saying that society values marriage (unless you are deemed to be rich, and then it doesn't value you at all)
Lib Dems on marriage tax breaks: most LDs oppose as they feel it's about judging families, and that it's wrong to promote prescriptive forms of family when evidence is inconclusive.
I have, erm, unusual views on family issues for a Lib Dem and support the principle as I accept that marriage brings increased stability, and a stable home is the best environment for children to be raised in. It gives young people a reason to aspire to marriage which I'd welcome. However I see 2 key problems that the Tories will be bashed with unless they deal with:
1 - as stated, a transferable allowance between partners only benefits those where one works and the other doesn't. There's no evidence that this arrangement within a marriage is better than any other, and I'd argue it's to the detriment of the non-working spouse. So if you believe in supporting marriage, you need to support all marriages.
2 - if a spouse is suffering domestic violence, they are financially better off sticking within an abusive marriage. I'd want to see that any partner fleeing evidenced domestic violence in a marriage continued to receive the benefit for say 5 years afterwards, as they shouldn't be penalised for getting out.
If the Tories could deal with these, I'd be a rare Lib Dem in favour.
Why would you give a tax break to improve a child's lot to people who don't have children?
Because marriage is beneficial for the partners and not just their children. If you believe in supporting marriage, why discriminate against childless marriages?
I remain unconvinced on marriage tax breaks, but on school meals Guido was showing his desperation this morning. If you read to opposition it's just a rant (e.g. TPA)
[...Snip...]
The cost compared to say expanding the number of people on free school meals has been well established and the idea that free school meals covers everyone who would benefit has been roundly rejected. If the Tories put the emphasis on improving performance, they could make a winner out of this as well - after all, at primary level few object to everyone eating the same thing at the same time and surely Tories even less so.
There is a lot of evidence that optimising nutrition can massively imporve outcomes for children. I've seen this mainly on behaviour (with read through to school performance) but see no reason to doubt there would be other benefits.
The biggest concern that I have with this policy is that there are a number of excellent charities working in this field already (albeit mainly targetted at breakfast). The problem is that they will largely be crowded out (schools will see them as less relevant, donors will assume that the state will pay, etc) so at the margin some very worthwhile Big Society activities will cease (and children in need will suffer). Then, should a future government cut back on the programme for whatever reason the infrastructure and experiences will be lost.
I can see the marginal cost argument for extending it to everyone rather than just broadening the net, but do question whether this is the best use of resources.
RT @chrisshipitv@itvnews/ComRes poll 67% prefer SINGLE PARTY majority govt. Asked if LibDem contribution good for Britain 46% NO 24% YES
That's actually quite good news for the LibDems - if they can get some more of those 24% to vote for them, or vote for them at least in the key seats, they'll do quite well.
Regarding free school meals - an easy open goal for Labour would be to pledge to extend them to say all primary school children - paid for by no marriage tax allowance.
Why are Labour and the Lib Dems so against supporting marriage? Pretty much every other country in the EU has some form of support for marriage in the tax system.
So why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it some sort of philosophical objection to the very concept of marriage? Or something else?
They don't see it as supporting marriage, the see it as punishing single mums...
If that's the basis then anyone who doesn't get something someone else gets is being "punished". It's an incoherent argument. Single parents get child benefit just like everyone else.
I find this attitude very offputting - it risks coming across as a hatred of marriage and, by implication, of married people.
Why not tax divorce then? £2.88 a week makes no difference to anyone getting married or not it's simple a "signal", in this case from Cameron to the Mail/Telegraph. The evidence based school dinners policy makes a big difference as has been shown.
There are lots of stats that children do better in stable family units. There are also statistics that cohabitating units are significantly less likely to be stable. The argument is that promoting marriage encourages stable family units and therefore is a good thing with significant benefits in terms of life outcomes for the children. (I'm not aware if anyone has convincing demonstrated correlation vs causation though).
Essentially this is a signal saying that society values marriage (unless you are deemed to be rich, and then it doesn't value you at all)
Then incentivise stability in the first years of a child's life with a proper tax break rather than watering it down to give an older couple on their second marriage a tax break - makes no sense if you want to use arguments about children.
See tpkar's response. A policy can benefit more than one group of people. Just because a specific answer is only partial it doesn't invalidate it.
'' can see the marginal cost argument for extending it to everyone rather than just broadening the net, but do question whether this is the best use of resources.''
GBP600m is a drop in the ocean in the government's budget. This is all about detoxification of the tory brand.
The papers are wailing for tax cuts instead, and I reckon the low and medium paid will now definitely get one before the end of the parliament.
Even someone who acted as reprehensibly as McBride did, can tell the truth about what was going on at the time. I can understand why you might find that truth unpalatable, but there you go.
Remember, we've already learnt one thing from his blog - that the treasury under Labour operated a pour encourager les autres policy on staff. If a leak occurred, make the most likely suspect persona non grata. If they were the leaker, then all well and good. If not, then so what? The important thing is that it might stop a leak next time.
Regardless of how someone's career was hurt.
And Miliband was one of the top three people there at the time (X, Y and Z). Either he knew, in which case it was disgusting, or he did not know, in which case he's exceptionally naive.
It was also due – and I take full credit/responsibility for this – to my Admiral Byng approach to leaks. If anything did appear in the papers that was not from X, Y or Z, I would instantly name a culprit. I’d try and choose someone who was a decent suspect, but their guilt didn’t really matter – it was the assertion of their guilt that mattered. They would be cut out of meetings, removed from the circulation list for emails, and wherever they walked in the Treasury, people would mutter about their demise. The effect of this was to make the actual guilty party feel guilty as hell, and put the fear of God into everyone else in the Treasury about doing any leaking themselves. As for the poor Admiral Byngs, they’d usually recover after a while, and some of them were probably guilty anyway.
No, we know that McBride - a proven liar, spinner and smearer - claimed that there was such a policy. That's not the same thing as one actually existing. Though I can understand why you would want to believe him in this case.
The free school dinners proposal is a good idea on may fronts . Its a disgrace that quite poorly paid working taxpayers despite the government spending over 50% of economic output in taxes in various forms cannot provide things like free school meals or prescriptions or charge for hospital parking . If ordinary people could see that taxes are being spent on something useful (or indeed themselves) as opposed to armies of pen pushers in the civil service or councils they would be more willing to pay them or for them to rise
I for one wont be tempted to get married just to get a tax allowance worth £150 or even £1,500. You can get way more than that by marrying someone who needs to get around immigration laws.
The free school dinners proposal is a good idea on may fronts . Its a disgrace that quite poorly paid working taxpayers despite the government spending over 50% of economic output in taxes in various forms cannot get provided things like free school meals or prescriptions or charge for hospital parking . If ordinary people could see that taxes are being spent on something useful (or indeed themselves) as opposed to armies of pen pushers in the civil service or councils they would be more willing to pay them or for them to rise
As someone in the middle of being obliged to fill in a tax return for the first time to try to limit the 67% marginal tax rate the child benefit reduction is whacking me with, I am really quite annoyed by this absurd free school meals policy.
So it is universal - rich parents will benefit, but poor parents who prefer to give their kid packed lunches for all kind of good reasons will lose out! A total reversal of the philosophy behind whacking "rich" child benefit recipients.
Also school meals are not great, my 2 kids who are too old to benefit have them twice a week and the portions are tiny. We prefer to eat together as a family later. The youngest will "benefit" when she's old enough but forgive me (and her) for not being over the moon.
How dare the state assume that the packed lunches they get are unhealthy and they know better? Just the principle of this nannying really p1sses me off.
Laughable that this expensive vanity wheeze is seen by the LDs as the highlight of their week. And we haven't even found out how this will be paid for yet. I strongly suspect as a "rich" person (sole earner for the 5 of us, earning not much over £50K) I will find out very soon.
It's almost like you have never before heard of a political party doing something to please its base / the press. I dont want to deprive you of your innocence but I believe it happens quite a bit.
No, we know that McBride - a proven liar, spinner and smearer - claimed that there was such a policy. That's not the same thing as one actually existing. Though I can understand why you would want to believe him in this case.
I want the truth to be found - such a thing should not happen in any employer, yet alone at the top of the civil service. If he has lied about this, then it is another terrible claim by him. If he has told the truth, then we should know, and we should stop it happening in any other departments.
Just because someone lies in a big way on several occasions, does not mean that he is automatically lying in this case. Given what happened later, it certainly seems within the realms of possibility.
So it is simple: there should be an investigation. Will Miliband, Balls and Brown say what they think was going on at the time? Or do you just want it swept under the carpet?
No, we know that McBride - a proven liar, spinner and smearer - claimed that there was such a policy. That's not the same thing as one actually existing. Though I can understand why you would want to believe him in this case.
I want the truth to be found - such a thing should not happen in any employer, yet alone at the top of the civil service. If he has lied about this, then it is another terrible claim by him. If he has told the truth, then we should know, and we should stop it happening in any other departments.
Just because someone lies in a big way on several occasions, does not mean that he is automatically lying in this case. Given what happened later, it certainly seems within the realms of possibility.
So it is simple: there should be an investigation. Will Miliband, Balls and Brown say what they think was going on at the time? Or do you just want it swept under the carpet?
It's up to the civil service to decide whether there should be an investigation. Presumably, the people in charge of such things have decided that as there seems to be no evidence whatsoever to back up the claims made by a proven liar and smearer it would be a waste of time and money to hold any kind of enquiry.
No, we know that McBride - a proven liar, spinner and smearer - claimed that there was such a policy. That's not the same thing as one actually existing. Though I can understand why you would want to believe him in this case.
I want the truth to be found - such a thing should not happen in any employer, yet alone at the top of the civil service. If he has lied about this, then it is another terrible claim by him. If he has told the truth, then we should know, and we should stop it happening in any other departments.
Just because someone lies in a big way on several occasions, does not mean that he is automatically lying in this case. Given what happened later, it certainly seems within the realms of possibility.
So it is simple: there should be an investigation. Will Miliband, Balls and Brown say what they think was going on at the time? Or do you just want it swept under the carpet?
It's up to the civil service to decide whether there should be an investigation. Presumably, the people in charge of such things have decided that as there seems to be no evidence whatsoever to back up the claims made by a proven liar and smearer it would be a waste of time and money to hold any kind of enquiry.
equally they could have decided there's no career mileage in stirring things up.
No, we know that McBride - a proven liar, spinner and smearer - claimed that there was such a policy. That's not the same thing as one actually existing. Though I can understand why you would want to believe him in this case.
I want the truth to be found - such a thing should not happen in any employer, yet alone at the top of the civil service. If he has lied about this, then it is another terrible claim by him. If he has told the truth, then we should know, and we should stop it happening in any other departments.
Just because someone lies in a big way on several occasions, does not mean that he is automatically lying in this case. Given what happened later, it certainly seems within the realms of possibility.
So it is simple: there should be an investigation. Will Miliband, Balls and Brown say what they think was going on at the time? Or do you just want it swept under the carpet?
It's up to the civil service to decide whether there should be an investigation. Presumably, the people in charge of such things have decided that as there seems to be no evidence whatsoever to back up the claims made by a proven liar and smearer it would be a waste of time and money to hold any kind of enquiry.
I can see you're getting your message in early, ready for his book to be released.
As for the civil service - who knows it they've been asked? That is a rather big assumption on your part. And as for no evidence, how do you know? Surely an inquiry would talk to people to try to find evidence?
I really hope you wouldn't treat an accusation from one of your staff members in such a cavalier manner.
It'd be easy enough for Brown, Miliband or Balls just to say it's a lie. And that's exactly what you'd be asking Cameron to do if the situation was reversed.
s there any evidence that a £150 pa marriage tax break will increase take up given that the average cost of a wedding is reportedly £18k?
How do you know its going to be 150 quid?
If I was Cameron, I'd have wanted much more than that for giving the lib dems free school meals.
£600m. Work out how many married couples @ say 25% MTR.
So, MCA will be circa £2400m. There are, of course, many who do not pay any tax whatsoever.
But, I understood there was no money because we had to pay down debt. Even if this came out of "extra savings", what stopped these "savings" to reduce debt even further.
I think Tories feel they are laying a trap for Labour ! Some trap !!
How big does lunch have to be to "crowd out" the following days breakfast? (Assuming we are not including liquid lunches)
Crowding out in the sense of reducing incentives for schools, donors and individuals to get involved. If you had spent as many years as I have in and around the charity sector, you would know that there are often major disadvantages when the government gets involved.
Can we expect a leak of Eton gossip in the run up to the election ?
"Cameron's tuck shop shame"
I believe that there will be a tv play about the Bullingdon Club and some of the antics of our present beloved leaders will be show cased. Due to be shown sometime in October. Can't wait! Case of Bollie ready to be opened, etc., ad nauseum.
No, we know that McBride - a proven liar, spinner and smearer - claimed that there was such a policy. That's not the same thing as one actually existing. Though I can understand why you would want to believe him in this case.
I want the truth to be found - such a thing should not happen in any employer, yet alone at the top of the civil service. If he has lied about this, then it is another terrible claim by him. If he has told the truth, then we should know, and we should stop it happening in any other departments.
Just because someone lies in a big way on several occasions, does not mean that he is automatically lying in this case. Given what happened later, it certainly seems within the realms of possibility.
So it is simple: there should be an investigation. Will Miliband, Balls and Brown say what they think was going on at the time? Or do you just want it swept under the carpet?
It's up to the civil service to decide whether there should be an investigation. Presumably, the people in charge of such things have decided that as there seems to be no evidence whatsoever to back up the claims made by a proven liar and smearer it would be a waste of time and money to hold any kind of enquiry.
I can see you're getting your message in early, ready for his book to be released.
As for the civil service - who knows it they've been asked? That is a rather big assumption on your part. And as for no evidence, how do you know? Surely an inquiry would talk to people to try to find evidence?
I really hope you wouldn't treat an accusation from one of your staff members in such a cavalier manner.
It'd be easy enough for Brown, Miliband or Balls just to say it's a lie. And that's exactly what you'd be asking Cameron to do if the situation was reversed.
I would not be asking Cameron to do anything. I do not think it is worth the time, money or effort to investigate half-baked claims about unsubstantiated claims made by someone who is a proven liar and smearer. I understand that you would like to think the worst of EdM and Labour, but let's not pretend it is anything more than that.
It's up to the civil service to decide whether there should be an investigation. Presumably, the people in charge of such things have decided that as there seems to be no evidence whatsoever to back up the claims made by a proven liar and smearer it would be a waste of time and money to hold any kind of enquiry.
I can see you're getting your message in early, ready for his book to be released.
As for the civil service - who knows it they've been asked? That is a rather big assumption on your part. And as for no evidence, how do you know? Surely an inquiry would talk to people to try to find evidence?
I really hope you wouldn't treat an accusation from one of your staff members in such a cavalier manner.
It'd be easy enough for Brown, Miliband or Balls just to say it's a lie. And that's exactly what you'd be asking Cameron to do if the situation was reversed.
I would not be asking Cameron to do anything. I do not think it is worth the time, money or effort to investigate half-baked claims about unsubstantiated claims made by someone who is a proven liar and smearer. I understand that you would like to think the worst of EdM and Labour, but let's not pretend it is anything more than that.
What utter rubbish. The claims are serious. Do you agree?
Yes, the source is dubious, but he admits he did it himself, and he should know what is going on. And the fear instilled by such practices means they would remain unsubstantiated until an investigation occurs. Staff need to be told that anything they say would have no effect on their careers.
Remember, any supposed victims of this misbehaviour would know all too well that two of the people on the periphery may soon be back in power.
And why would McBride have invented it? It was hardly the core message on the blog post.
Viewers of BBC News were left perplexed this morning when a newsreader appeared on screen inexplicably holding a stack of photocopier paper.
Simon McCoy had grabbed the pack of A4 paper as he prepared to deliver a live bulletin, mistakenly thinking it was an iPad.
Unpanicked, the veteran newsreader held the accidental prop in front of him as he completed a thirty-second piece-to-camera about “drunk tanks”, the privately-run holding cells aimed at curbing alcohol-fuelled disturbances in town centres.
Mr McCoy did not acknowledge the mistake on screen, but a BBC spokesman later explained: “This morning as Simon McCoy was preparing to introduce this story, instead of picking up his tablet to hold as he went to air, he mistakenly picked up a ream of paper that was sitting next to it.
What utter rubbish. The claims are serious. Do you agree?
Yes, the source is dubious, but he admits he did it himself, and he should know what is going on. And the fear instilled by such practices means they would remain unsubstantiated until an investigation occurs. Staff need to be told that anything they say would have no effect on their careers.
Remember, any supposed victims of this misbehaviour would know all too well that two of the people on the periphery may soon be back in power.
And why would McBride have invented it? It was hardly the core message on the blog post.
Why would he have invented it? To make himself seem a lot more important than he was. It's the kind of thing that liars do.
McBride is making claims about a time when he was employed as a civil servant. It is, therefore, up to the civil service to decide whether any investigation is required. As one has not been held, we can only conclude that one has not been deemed necessary.
I have been absolutely consistent from day one that McBride is a smearing liar who has no place in British politics. I see all claims he makes through that prism and always have - no ifs, no buts. Clearly, your views of him are a little more nuanced: he is a lying smearer; until, that is, he makes claims that may put Labour in a bad light. At that stage, what he says deserves to be taken very seriously indeed. Given your oft-professed views on Labour and Labour politicians, I am afraid that is an ever so slightly transparent position to take!
Why would he have invented it? To make himself seem a lot more important than he was. It's the kind of thing that liars do.
McBride is making claims about a time when he was employed as a civil servant. It is, therefore, up to the civil service to decide whether any investigation is required. As one has not been held, we can only conclude that one has not been deemed necessary.
I have been absolutely consistent from day one that McBride is a smearing liar who has no place in British politics. I see all claims he makes through that prism and always have - no ifs, no buts. Clearly, your views of him are a little more nuanced: he is a lying smearer; until, that is, he makes claims that may put Labour in a bad light. At that stage, what he says deserves to be taken very seriously indeed. Given your oft-professed views on Labour and Labour politicians, I am afraid that is an ever so slightly transparent position to take!
Your assumption in the second paragraph is both incredible and stupid. What is more, you don't take that position in other cases, as I recall.
As for the third paragraph, that's not my position at all, as you would see if you read my posts below. Since you are wont to misinterpret it, I will repeat my position: any evidence McBride gives is suspect. But the accusation is so serious that it deserves further investigation.
It appears you want the claims swept beneath the carpet. Disgusting and transparent.
Why would he have invented it? To make himself seem a lot more important than he was. It's the kind of thing that liars do.
McBride is making claims about a time when he was employed as a civil servant. It is, therefore, up to the civil service to decide whether any investigation is required. As one has not been held, we can only conclude that one has not been deemed necessary.
I have been absolutely consistent from day one that McBride is a smearing liar who has no place in British politics. I see all claims he makes through that prism and always have - no ifs, no buts. Clearly, your views of him are a little more nuanced: he is a lying smearer; until, that is, he makes claims that may put Labour in a bad light. At that stage, what he says deserves to be taken very seriously indeed. Given your oft-professed views on Labour and Labour politicians, I am afraid that is an ever so slightly transparent position to take!
Your assumption in the second paragraph is both incredible and stupid. What is more, you don't take that position in other cases, as I recall.
As for the third paragraph, that's not my position at all, as you would see if you read my posts below. Since you are wont to misinterpret it, I will repeat my position: any evidence McBride gives is suspect. But the accusation is so serious that it deserves further investigation.
It appears you want the claims swept beneath the carpet. Disgusting and transparent.
So who should be investigating McBride's conduct when he was employed as a civil servant if it is not the civil service; the police? McBride is not making any accusation in this instance, he is making a claim. And no-one has made any public accusations against him. Thus, what we have here are unsubstantiated assertions made by a proven and disgraced liar. But because they concern Labour's time in office you want some unspecified body to investigate them. As I say, I am afraid you are totally and utterly transparent.
Your assumption in the second paragraph is both incredible and stupid. What is more, you don't take that position in other cases, as I recall.
As for the third paragraph, that's not my position at all, as you would see if you read my posts below. Since you are wont to misinterpret it, I will repeat my position: any evidence McBride gives is suspect. But the accusation is so serious that it deserves further investigation.
It appears you want the claims swept beneath the carpet. Disgusting and transparent.
So who should be investigating McBride's conduct when he was employed as a civil servant if it is not the civil service; the police? McBride is not making any accusation in this instance, he is making a claim. And no-one has made any public accusations against him. Thus, what we have here are unsubstantiated assertions made by a proven and disgraced liar. But because they concern Labour's time in office you want some unspecified body to investigate them. As I say, I am afraid you are totally and utterly transparent.
Oh Lordy.
Where is your evidence that the civil service has even considered investigating this? It is the core assumption you make, and as far as I can see it is unproved or untrue. What is the process for such a claim being investigated? Do you even know?
Your efforts to make McBride into a bogeyman before his book comes out are pathetic. I have no time for the man, but the idea that everything he says is lies - which is the end-point of your argument - is laughable.
It's a shame that you lower yourself to that level of wanting such accusations - even by a proven liar on other matters - swept under the carpet without investigation.
Your assumption in the second paragraph is both incredible and stupid. What is more, you don't take that position in other cases, as I recall.
As for the third paragraph, that's not my position at all, as you would see if you read my posts below. Since you are wont to misinterpret it, I will repeat my position: any evidence McBride gives is suspect. But the accusation is so serious that it deserves further investigation.
It appears you want the claims swept beneath the carpet. Disgusting and transparent.
So who should be investigating McBride's conduct when he was employed as a civil servant if it is not the civil service; the police? McBride is not making any accusation in this instance, he is making a claim. And no-one has made any public accusations against him. Thus, what we have here are unsubstantiated assertions made by a proven and disgraced liar. But because they concern Labour's time in office you want some unspecified body to investigate them. As I say, I am afraid you are totally and utterly transparent.
Oh Lordy.
Where is your evidence that the civil service has even considered investigating this? It is the core assumption you make, and as far as I can see it is unproved or untrue. What is the process for such a claim being investigated? Do you even know?
Your efforts to make McBride into a bogeyman before his book comes out are pathetic. I have no time for the man, but the idea that everything he says is lies - which is the end-point of your argument - is laughable.
It's a shame that you lower yourself to that level of wanting such accusations - even by a proven liar on other matters - swept under the carpet without investigation.
As I said, disgusting and transparent.
So who should investigate these unsubstantiated claims made by a proven liar? And can you explain why there has been no investigation up to now?
McBride made himself into a bogeyman many years ago. He was roundly and rightly condemned by all sides for his totally unacceptable behaviour. Obviously, serial Labour haters such as yourself will now forget all that and seek to portray him as a fearless teller of the truth. But, I am afraid, it is just too transparent to be credible.
So who should investigate these unsubstantiated claims made by a proven liar? And can you explain why there has been no investigation up to now?
McBride made himself into a bogeyman many years ago. He was roundly and rightly condemned by all sides for his totally unacceptable behaviour. Obviously, serial Labour haters such as yourself will now forget all that and seek to portray him as a fearless teller of the truth. But, I am afraid, it is just too transparent to be credible.
I've no idea why there's not been an investigation. Perhaps no-one's felt willing or able to complain (if the events actually did occur). And no wonder with people around with your attitude to this - you'd hardly believe them, would you? After all, any such complainant would indicate McBride was telling the truth, and you've decided that's impossible.
And you still cannot back up your statement below.
I'm not trying to make him out to be a fearless teller of the truth, It's just that it's not binary: someone can be lying about one thing, and telling the truth on another. The fact he's lied in the past should make the burden of proof larger, but it doesn't make what he's saying untrue. I would have thought that was obvious.
Come off it. I'm hardly a 'serial Labour hater'. As you well know, my position is much more nuanced than that. I dislike certain figures within the party - and can give reasons - but I hardly automatically take an anti-Labour position. Witness Royal Mail privatisation.
So who should investigate these unsubstantiated claims made by a proven liar? And can you explain why there has been no investigation up to now?
McBride made himself into a bogeyman many years ago. He was roundly and rightly condemned by all sides for his totally unacceptable behaviour. Obviously, serial Labour haters such as yourself will now forget all that and seek to portray him as a fearless teller of the truth. But, I am afraid, it is just too transparent to be credible.
I've no idea why there's not been an investigation. Perhaps no-one's felt willing or able to complain (if the events actually did occur). And no wonder with people around with your attitude to this - you'd hardly believe them, would you? After all, any such complainant would indicate McBride was telling the truth, and you've decided that's impossible.
And you still cannot back up your statement below.
I'm not trying to make him out to be a fearless teller of the truth, It's just that it's not binary: someone can be lying about one thing, and telling the truth on another. The fact he's lied in the past should make the burden of proof larger, but it doesn't make what he's saying untrue. I would have thought that was obvious.
Come off it. I'm hardly a 'serial Labour hater'. As you well know, my position is much more nuanced than that. I dislike certain figures within the party - and can give reasons - but I hardly automatically take an anti-Labour position. Witness Royal Mail privatisation.
It is a bit far-fetched to blame people like me for there not having been an investigation into unsubstantiated claims made by a serial liar about events that as of today happened at least four years ago. I'd have thought it was obvious that without a shred of evidence to back up the claims made by so discredited a witness as McBride an investigation would be a waste of time and money. But you will believe what you want to believe. I cannot argue with that.
Comments
Puzzle it is. The full flexibility of the labour market is yet to be fully understood.
Hand yourself in now man .... or have Dog Holmes of 221B Barker Street will be on the job !!
It will be popcorn time as the neo-liberal economic experiment is played out to its final conclusion on our doorstep. With predictable consequences (none of them good).
http://www.euronews.com/2013/09/18/dutch-king-declares-end-of-the-welfare-state/
I suggest anybody who takes advice from an anonymous internet forum without doing their own research is a mug.
Anyway, as to the Air (or any mac laptop) being overpriced... Find the same quality and equivalent tech in a windows laptop for less... any genuinely like-for-like price comparison shows this old saw (that macs are over priced) to be nonsense. Yes macs are not cheap, but they are good. An equivalent "PC" laptop would be just as expensive.
It has been said that one in five infant school children already get free meals. However, few of the parents will be in the upper quartile of wealthy people. Even the higher income parents are losing child credit and are unlikely to have accumulated much wealth since they are younger, have high mortgage repayments and much of their income is taxed at 40% or more.
There is very little commentary in the ONS bulletin. Mainly headline statistics backed up with charts.
It is almost as if the ONS is deliberately keeping out of the debate on causes, given the known lack of consensus amongst economists on this issue.
Another reason for the brevity of the bulletin is that there is a range of other ONS releases on productivity which are referenced under para 3 of the background notes. This includes a specific release on 'public sector productivity measures'.
I will follow the trail set this evening to see if I can find some more detailed breakdowns and/or official commentary.
£2.88 a week makes no difference to anyone getting married or not it's simple a "signal", in this case from Cameron to the Mail/Telegraph.
The evidence based school dinners policy makes a big difference as has been shown.
I remain unconvinced on marriage tax breaks, but on school meals Guido was showing his desperation this morning. If you read to opposition it's just a rant (e.g. TPA): The cost compared to say expanding the number of people on free school meals has been well established and the idea that free school meals covers everyone who would benefit has been roundly rejected. If the Tories put the emphasis on improving performance, they could make a winner out of this as well - after all, at primary level few object to everyone eating the same thing at the same time and surely Tories even less so.
Cheers for the advice (and Daemon).
Our Windows machines are clunky because they're a bit old, XP and Win7 OSs, and we just don't use them enough, the odd bit of Photoshop, PowerPoint.
We use tablets and smart phones, iPods and PS3s, for everything, streaming music around the house, watching movies, viewing photos.
Our portable hard drives/USB sticks plug right into most of the phones, and all of the tablets. My youngest lad watches HD movies on Love Film on a Galaxy S2 phone via an HDMI connection into his TV. The Mrs uses an iPad mini, but I can't get on with it, I use a Galaxy Tablet.
We just don't really need a Windows machine, and I just can't justify a Mac, or actually like apple stuff much. I just sometimes need something laptop sized with a keyboard.
I might just get a decent Bluetooth keyboard!
Why not tax divorce then?
£2.88 a week makes no difference to anyone getting married or not it's simple a "signal", in this case from Cameron to the Mail/Telegraph.
The evidence based school dinners policy makes a big difference as has been shown.
Do you have any research data comparing the impact of single parents marrying on the educational achievement of the mother's children?
If such research is not to hand may I recommend the following paper as a starting point:
"Does Children’s Academic Achievement Improve when Single Mothers Marry?" Robert L. Wagmiller, Jr., Elizabeth Gershoff, Ph.D, Philip Veliz, M.A., and Margaret Clements, Ph.D.
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3099187/
Extract:
Promoting marriage, especially among low-income single mothers with children, is increasingly viewed as a promising public policy strategy for improving developmental outcomes for disadvantaged children. Previous research suggests, however, that children’s academic achievement either does not improve or declines when single mothers marry. In this paper, we argue that previous research may understate the benefits of mothers’ marriages to children from single-parent families because (1) the short-term and long-term developmental consequences of marriage are not adequately distinguished and (2) child and family contexts in which marriage is likely to confer developmental advantages are not differentiated from those that do not. Using multiple waves of data from the ECLS-K, we find that single mothers’ marriages are associated with modest but statistically significant improvements in their children’s academic achievement trajectories. However, only children from more advantaged single-parent families benefit from their mothers’ marriage.
Maybe marriage makes more of a difference than Eiffel Tower shaped fruit bites? If the evidence shows this to be the case, then isn't there an argument to re-route the £600 million school lunches subsidy to the marriage tax relief?
How has this report assessed productivity in such areas?
BBC: BREAKING NEWS:IPCC says "Plebgate" probe into row between officers and Tory ex-minister involves "complex" conspiracy claims
Portsmouth Labour leader John Ferrett writes to Lib Dem Cl leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson urging he suspend Mike Hancock from council cabinet
Hmm more potential for that by-election.
The SNP could take Salmond and a couple of podiums for a tour around Scotland looking for people willing to get up to debate the issue with him. And then they can ask the question as to why the PM of the UK doesn't feel that the issue of Scottish independence is important enough for him to debate with Salmond.
Will be looking at the linked ONS publications on productivity tonight to see what it has to say.
@GuidoFawkes
Ed: “I am delighted to welcome Paddy to the Labour Party as our new Deputy Director of Communications"-No more attacks on Old Etonions then
Louise Stewart @BBCLouise
Labour Party announces The Sunday Telegraph's Patrick Hennessy will be their new Deputy Director of Communications.
I'm not exactly shocked here - he's the most Lefty hack for the righwing press and a mate of McPoison.
I would find that very surprising.
RT @TrippyPip: Q: When are Old Etonians acceptable?
A: When the Labour Party employs them of course.
I've lost track - are we a BRIC yet?
No 59 %
Yes 27 %
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424263/Salmond-attacked-ex-aide-tedious-Yes-campaign-27-support-bid-break-UK.html
The £600-million* for primary-school kids to have a lunch: Could that money not be better spent raising the NI and tax-threshold levels? After such good efforts by the Lib-Dhimmies to reduce working-class burdens**, it would appear perverse that they are spunking cash at underservables as "progressive" policy***: But, then, I have never met a bright Left[MODERATED]....
* And Barnett kick-backs.
** Oh, did I forget. My family were working-class from Lewisham. Apart from getting an education I, well, you can't even think about your failings...
*** Leave it to "Wee-FrEck" and observe Scotland as a people who lack "dangly t'ings", innit....
Compared to what I would be able to buy running Windows for the same price it's been amazing.
What I would advise is installing Chrome on your current PC, and trying out a few of the web apps to see if they can replace the bits of software you currently use. Then you can see if the file conversion process works ok, and whether the photo editors available have enough functionality for you.
Worth noting that you can also store data on SD cards or external hard drives if you want to keep stuff backed-up, or away from the cloud.
Thankfully, those of us south of the border have been spared the bulk of this tedious media campaign. Perhaps Salmond’s strategy of boring the electorate into submission may need a little rethink.
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Luke 15.7
Poll @itvnew ComRes: More people disagree than agree when asked-LibDems have reined in "worst excesses" of Tories.<Wasn't that main message?
Toff, Eton, chumocracy, posh, Eton, country suppers, toff, out-of-touch, rich friends, Eton...
*oh this feels *goooooood*
George Eaton @georgeeaton
After the appointment of @PatJHennessy, here's my guide from earlier this year to who's who on Team Ed. bit.ly/146vG6T
"Cameron's tuck shop shame"
I have, erm, unusual views on family issues for a Lib Dem and support the principle as I accept that marriage brings increased stability, and a stable home is the best environment for children to be raised in. It gives young people a reason to aspire to marriage which I'd welcome. However I see 2 key problems that the Tories will be bashed with unless they deal with:
1 - as stated, a transferable allowance between partners only benefits those where one works and the other doesn't. There's no evidence that this arrangement within a marriage is better than any other, and I'd argue it's to the detriment of the non-working spouse. So if you believe in supporting marriage, you need to support all marriages.
2 - if a spouse is suffering domestic violence, they are financially better off sticking within an abusive marriage. I'd want to see that any partner fleeing evidenced domestic violence in a marriage continued to receive the benefit for say 5 years afterwards, as they shouldn't be penalised for getting out.
If the Tories could deal with these, I'd be a rare Lib Dem in favour.
Remember, we've already learnt one thing from his blog - that the treasury under Labour operated a pour encourager les autres policy on staff. If a leak occurred, make the most likely suspect persona non grata. If they were the leaker, then all well and good. If not, then so what? The important thing is that it might stop a leak next time.
Regardless of how someone's career was hurt.
And Miliband was one of the top three people there at the time (X, Y and Z). Either he knew, in which case it was disgusting, or he did not know, in which case he's exceptionally naive. Sadly his blog is no longer available; but it is cached at:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fE-IKD1KWYkJ:dpmcbride.tumblr.com/post/32591430164/the-seven-year-hitch+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
"Given how yummy Mr Hennessey is with McPoison - just read their tweet exchanges - I expect him to be a less able version, this may be a *good thing*.
Toff, Eton, chumocracy, posh, Eton, country suppers, toff, out-of-touch, rich friends, Eton...
*oh this feels *goooooood*
Obviously too much tweeting addles your brain
"In his new role, Patrick will direct, shape and lead the daily media output of the Labour Party. He will sharpen Labour’s attack stories, improve message discipline and ensure the party delivers a 24-hour news cycle."
Looks like Ed has given up on having policies and is going negative from here on out.
Essentially this is a signal saying that society values marriage (unless you are deemed to be rich, and then it doesn't value you at all)
So now Labour has its mini-Brown (@Ed_Miliband) and its mini (but not nearly as able) @DPMcBride... What could go wrong? #EtoniansForLabour
The biggest concern that I have with this policy is that there are a number of excellent charities working in this field already (albeit mainly targetted at breakfast). The problem is that they will largely be crowded out (schools will see them as less relevant, donors will assume that the state will pay, etc) so at the margin some very worthwhile Big Society activities will cease (and children in need will suffer). Then, should a future government cut back on the programme for whatever reason the infrastructure and experiences will be lost.
I can see the marginal cost argument for extending it to everyone rather than just broadening the net, but do question whether this is the best use of resources.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24143383
GBP600m is a drop in the ocean in the government's budget. This is all about detoxification of the tory brand.
The papers are wailing for tax cuts instead, and I reckon the low and medium paid will now definitely get one before the end of the parliament.
How do you know its going to be 150 quid?
If I was Cameron, I'd have wanted much more than that for giving the lib dems free school meals.
Even someone who acted as reprehensibly as McBride did, can tell the truth about what was going on at the time. I can understand why you might find that truth unpalatable, but there you go.
Remember, we've already learnt one thing from his blog - that the treasury under Labour operated a pour encourager les autres policy on staff. If a leak occurred, make the most likely suspect persona non grata. If they were the leaker, then all well and good. If not, then so what? The important thing is that it might stop a leak next time.
Regardless of how someone's career was hurt.
And Miliband was one of the top three people there at the time (X, Y and Z). Either he knew, in which case it was disgusting, or he did not know, in which case he's exceptionally naive. Sadly his blog is no longer available; but it is cached at:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fE-IKD1KWYkJ:dpmcbride.tumblr.com/post/32591430164/the-seven-year-hitch+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
No, we know that McBride - a proven liar, spinner and smearer - claimed that there was such a policy. That's not the same thing as one actually existing. Though I can understand why you would want to believe him in this case.
If ordinary people could see that taxes are being spent on something useful (or indeed themselves) as opposed to armies of pen pushers in the civil service or councils they would be more willing to pay them or for them to rise
If ordinary people could see that taxes are being spent on something useful (or indeed themselves) as opposed to armies of pen pushers in the civil service or councils they would be more willing to pay them or for them to rise
I meant to say!!
Neil you old softie, you've seen 'Green Card' a few too many times.
I draw the line at marrying Gerard Depardieu!
So it is universal - rich parents will benefit, but poor parents who prefer to give their kid packed lunches for all kind of good reasons will lose out! A total reversal of the philosophy behind whacking "rich" child benefit recipients.
Also school meals are not great, my 2 kids who are too old to benefit have them twice a week and the portions are tiny. We prefer to eat together as a family later. The youngest will "benefit" when she's old enough but forgive me (and her) for not being over the moon.
How dare the state assume that the packed lunches they get are unhealthy and they know better? Just the principle of this nannying really p1sses me off.
Laughable that this expensive vanity wheeze is seen by the LDs as the highlight of their week. And we haven't even found out how this will be paid for yet. I strongly suspect as a "rich" person (sole earner for the 5 of us, earning not much over £50K) I will find out very soon.
grrr
It's almost like you have never before heard of a political party doing something to please its base / the press. I dont want to deprive you of your innocence but I believe it happens quite a bit.
Abdul Hakim
Src.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24146166
What-a-kant....
Just because someone lies in a big way on several occasions, does not mean that he is automatically lying in this case. Given what happened later, it certainly seems within the realms of possibility.
So it is simple: there should be an investigation. Will Miliband, Balls and Brown say what they think was going on at the time? Or do you just want it swept under the carpet?
As for the civil service - who knows it they've been asked? That is a rather big assumption on your part. And as for no evidence, how do you know? Surely an inquiry would talk to people to try to find evidence?
I really hope you wouldn't treat an accusation from one of your staff members in such a cavalier manner.
It'd be easy enough for Brown, Miliband or Balls just to say it's a lie. And that's exactly what you'd be asking Cameron to do if the situation was reversed.
So, MCA will be circa £2400m. There are, of course, many who do not pay any tax whatsoever.
But, I understood there was no money because we had to pay down debt. Even if this came out of "extra savings", what stopped these "savings" to reduce debt even further.
I think Tories feel they are laying a trap for Labour ! Some trap !!
Yes, the source is dubious, but he admits he did it himself, and he should know what is going on. And the fear instilled by such practices means they would remain unsubstantiated until an investigation occurs. Staff need to be told that anything they say would have no effect on their careers.
Remember, any supposed victims of this misbehaviour would know all too well that two of the people on the periphery may soon be back in power.
And why would McBride have invented it? It was hardly the core message on the blog post.
Viewers of BBC News were left perplexed this morning when a newsreader appeared on screen inexplicably holding a stack of photocopier paper.
Simon McCoy had grabbed the pack of A4 paper as he prepared to deliver a live bulletin, mistakenly thinking it was an iPad.
Unpanicked, the veteran newsreader held the accidental prop in front of him as he completed a thirty-second piece-to-camera about “drunk tanks”, the privately-run holding cells aimed at curbing alcohol-fuelled disturbances in town centres.
Mr McCoy did not acknowledge the mistake on screen, but a BBC spokesman later explained: “This morning as Simon McCoy was preparing to introduce this story, instead of picking up his tablet to hold as he went to air, he mistakenly picked up a ream of paper that was sitting next to it.
“In the rush of live news, he didn’t have an opportunity to swap the items, so simply went with it.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article3872412.ece
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00453/bbc_reporter_ipad_1_453212c.jpg
Yes, the source is dubious, but he admits he did it himself, and he should know what is going on. And the fear instilled by such practices means they would remain unsubstantiated until an investigation occurs. Staff need to be told that anything they say would have no effect on their careers.
Remember, any supposed victims of this misbehaviour would know all too well that two of the people on the periphery may soon be back in power.
And why would McBride have invented it? It was hardly the core message on the blog post.
Why would he have invented it? To make himself seem a lot more important than he was. It's the kind of thing that liars do.
McBride is making claims about a time when he was employed as a civil servant. It is, therefore, up to the civil service to decide whether any investigation is required. As one has not been held, we can only conclude that one has not been deemed necessary.
I have been absolutely consistent from day one that McBride is a smearing liar who has no place in British politics. I see all claims he makes through that prism and always have - no ifs, no buts. Clearly, your views of him are a little more nuanced: he is a lying smearer; until, that is, he makes claims that may put Labour in a bad light. At that stage, what he says deserves to be taken very seriously indeed. Given your oft-professed views on Labour and Labour politicians, I am afraid that is an ever so slightly transparent position to take!
As for the third paragraph, that's not my position at all, as you would see if you read my posts below. Since you are wont to misinterpret it, I will repeat my position: any evidence McBride gives is suspect. But the accusation is so serious that it deserves further investigation.
It appears you want the claims swept beneath the carpet. Disgusting and transparent.
Where is your evidence that the civil service has even considered investigating this? It is the core assumption you make, and as far as I can see it is unproved or untrue. What is the process for such a claim being investigated? Do you even know?
Your efforts to make McBride into a bogeyman before his book comes out are pathetic. I have no time for the man, but the idea that everything he says is lies - which is the end-point of your argument - is laughable.
It's a shame that you lower yourself to that level of wanting such accusations - even by a proven liar on other matters - swept under the carpet without investigation.
As I said, disgusting and transparent.
McBride made himself into a bogeyman many years ago. He was roundly and rightly condemned by all sides for his totally unacceptable behaviour. Obviously, serial Labour haters such as yourself will now forget all that and seek to portray him as a fearless teller of the truth. But, I am afraid, it is just too transparent to be credible.
And you still cannot back up your statement below.
I'm not trying to make him out to be a fearless teller of the truth, It's just that it's not binary: someone can be lying about one thing, and telling the truth on another. The fact he's lied in the past should make the burden of proof larger, but it doesn't make what he's saying untrue. I would have thought that was obvious.
Come off it. I'm hardly a 'serial Labour hater'. As you well know, my position is much more nuanced than that. I dislike certain figures within the party - and can give reasons - but I hardly automatically take an anti-Labour position. Witness Royal Mail privatisation.