'Feel free to critique the data on the economic contribution of EU immigrants.'
Feel free to critique the data on how wages were driven down by Labour's policy of mass immigration.
Or are you too thick to ever contribute anything other than desperately trying to justify one Labour's most unpopular policy's?
While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages. The same is true of California in the US. So it is a bit simplistic to say that immigration drives down wages.
It drives down the wages of the poorest in society and inflates the wages of the richest might be a less simplistic way of putting it
'Feel free to critique the data on the economic contribution of EU immigrants.'
Feel free to critique the data on how wages were driven down by Labour's policy of mass immigration.
Or are you too thick to ever contribute anything other than desperately trying to justify one Labour's most unpopular policy's?
While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages. The same is true of California in the US. So it is a bit simplistic to say that immigration drives down wages.
It drives down the wages of the poorest in society and inflates the wages of the richest might be a less simplistic way of putting it
Yet there are queues of people from all the UK who want to move to London.
'Feel free to critique the data on the economic contribution of EU immigrants.'
Feel free to critique the data on how wages were driven down by Labour's policy of mass immigration.
Or are you too thick to ever contribute anything other than desperately trying to justify one Labour's most unpopular policy's?
While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages. The same is true of California in the US. So it is a bit simplistic to say that immigration drives down wages.
It drives down the wages of the poorest in society and inflates the wages of the richest might be a less simplistic way of putting it
By how much for the lowest and highest deciles, and is that outweighed by an overall contribution to the treasury and job growth, what figures are you using?
hahaha
you might as well have typed "fair enough, you win"
What were we saying about the unheralded excellence of Heathrow?
I'm en route to Bangkok. EVA Air.
I left my flat in Camden at 5.42pm, to climb in a taxi; I was sitting drinking wine in the SAS Lounge, Terminal 3, at 6.53pm.
That's one hour and one minute to go from my central London apartment to Heathrow airside, all checks completed. I challenge any global airport to beat that.
Well, your Central London apartment will be slightly farther away from Charles de Gaulle or Beijing Capital, and the taxi fare might be quite high. ;-)
'Feel free to critique the data on the economic contribution of EU immigrants.'
Feel free to critique the data on how wages were driven down by Labour's policy of mass immigration.
Or are you too thick to ever contribute anything other than desperately trying to justify one Labour's most unpopular policy's?
While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages. The same is true of California in the US. So it is a bit simplistic to say that immigration drives down wages.
It drives down the wages of the poorest in society and inflates the wages of the richest might be a less simplistic way of putting it
Yet there are queues of people from all the UK who want to move to London.
Are they economically irrational?
No I dont think so
Do you think people moving within the UK to London are competing for jobs with those from recent EU accession countries?
I am genuinely surprised at you, as you are clearly a very nice, decent lady, despite our political differences. If being against a policy that disproportionately smashes the disabled is "wrong side of the argument", happy to be on the wrong side.
The bedroom tax is a terribly devised policy - had not been thought through. That much is clear.
What were we saying about the unheralded excellence of Heathrow?
I'm en route to Bangkok. EVA Air.
I left my flat in Camden at 5.42pm, to climb in a taxi; I was sitting drinking wine in the SAS Lounge, Terminal 3, at 6.53pm.
That's one hour and one minute to go from my central London apartment to Heathrow airside, all checks completed. I challenge any global airport to beat that.
Ian Katz, news night editor tweets: Thrilled that the fantastic @ITVLauraK will be joining #newsnight as Chief Correspondent and regular presenter. She'll need a new handle...
As you are particularly focussed on people on home dialysis being effected by the bedroom subsidy, why not provide us with a complete list of the benefits/assistance available to these people and their carers? And also, a ball park figure of what that equates to as a monthly benefits income, remember to add in any discretionary housing payments they may be eligible for as a result of the removal of the bedroom subsidy.
The idea that somehow this Government doesn't care about, or has suddenly stopped providing adequately for the very clear and genuine needs of the severely disabled or those on renal dialysis just because they are removing a public housing bedroom subsidy enjoyed by a far wider group of tenants is simple untrue.
Which opinion poll backs the tax payer subsidising someone to have 1 to 2 spare bedrooms when so many of those working tax payers in public or private housing cannot afford to fund that extra room they might desperately need themselves for a variety of reasons? By the way, having been a nurse in a renal dialysis unit, I do have some experience of people on renal dialysis at home.
Backlash or swingback, take you pick. But with the polls showing the Government on the right side of the welfare argument, I suspect that Labour's aversion to any welfare reform is more about shoring up their core vote/Libdem/Lab switchers 35% strategy. As I said, its a gamble.
(snip)
Which opinion poll shows that public opinion is in favour of penalising kidney patients with a dialysis machine in a " spare bedroom " ?
It should not be beyond the wit of man to draft and operate a new policy that does not penalise the relatively few people with home renal dialysis or other severe disabilitites , The fact that IDS and pbtories just shrug their shoulders and cannot be bothered to do so sums up the Conservative philosophy to government .
Which facts are you referring to ? Please be specific and give references so that I can check them out .
Would you extend such benefit to those outside so ial housing? Or do you oppose Labours ending the subsidy for these peoe?
I am genuinely surprised at you, as you are clearly a very nice, decent lady, despite our political differences. If being against a policy that disproportionately smashes the disabled is "wrong side of the argument", happy to be on the wrong side.
The bedroom tax is a terribly devised policy - had not been thought through. That much is clear.
Ian Katz, news night editor tweets: Thrilled that the fantastic @ITVLauraK will be joining #newsnight as Chief Correspondent and regular presenter. She'll need a new handle...
Chris Cook has also joined Newsnight. He's great on ed stats.
@fitalass As is often the case with pbtories , you obfuscate and distort the point I made rather than answering it . You have the cheek to ask me to provide a set of figures which you could not do yourself in defense of your own argument . The fact is that a relatively small number of severely disabled people are being hurt financially because the government could not be bothered to take the time and trouble to draft a law which would not do so . You and the government look upon those effected as sad but necessary casualties of a bigger more important battle .
Would you extend such benefit to those outside so ial housing? Or do you oppose Labours ending the subsidy for these peoe?
I am genuinely surprised at you, as you are clearly a very nice, decent lady, despite our political differences. If being against a policy that disproportionately smashes the disabled is "wrong side of the argument", happy to be on the wrong side.
The bedroom tax is a terribly devised policy - had not been thought through. That much is clear.
I assume that this was directed at me Fox, if not then apologies but there's something wrong with the threading.
I would support the policy in the hypothetical scenario that a) there were enough beds b) it applied to pensioners c) it didn't include the disabled d) people were able to sublet public housing
It would no longer be the Bedroom Tax, it would be a sensible policy in another place and time.
"Figure 2 shows the lack of correlation between changes in the native-born youth unemployment rate and changes in the share of immigrants living in an area between 2004 and 2010. Native-born youth unemployment rose less in areas that experienced a larger change in the share of immigrants. "
Can't we just have the free trade bit without all the horseshit that surrounds it ?
No - how else to do you want to keep the illiberal countries allowing free trade?
Or from refusing to accept British pensioners
British pensioners wealthy enough retire abroad (and only the wealthy can) end up spending their life savings there, don't live in social housing, don't bring large extended families and don't work all the hours god sends for a minimum wage that is a massive pay rise compared to their homeland, forcing the youth of their new country on to benefits
Show me the data on Brits in Europe, we know for a fact that EU migrants to the UK are net contributors to the Treasury, more likely to be working than Brits, less likely to be in social housing and less likely to use public services.
There are no facts as none of this data is collected. It's all *estimates* stated as facts.
I am genuinely surprised at you, as you are clearly a very nice, decent lady, despite our political differences. If being against a policy that disproportionately smashes the disabled is "wrong side of the argument", happy to be on the wrong side.
The bedroom tax is a terribly devised policy - had not been thought through. That much is clear.
How is it "disproportionately smash[ing] the disabled"? The Coalition has provided £155m to councils to make discretionary payments to those who are affected but who for reasons of disability can't move or cover the cost.
"English authorities could be forced to return £26 million to government if they don’t start spending
Millions of pounds of unspent emergency housing funding could be returned to the government, after councils used just a fraction of their combined £155 million pot in the first half of the year"
Can't we just have the free trade bit without all the horseshit that surrounds it ?
No - how else to do you want to keep the illiberal countries allowing free trade?
Or from refusing to accept British pensioners
British pensioners wealthy enough retire abroad (and only the wealthy can) end up spending their life savings there, don't live in social housing, don't bring large extended families and don't work all the hours god sends for a minimum wage that is a massive pay rise compared to their homeland, forcing the youth of their new country on to benefits
Show me the data on Brits in Europe, we know for a fact that EU migrants to the UK are net contributors to the Treasury, more likely to be working than Brits, less likely to be in social housing and less likely to use public services.
"we know for a fact"
No, we don't actually.
With you it's just the same old bollocks rattled off time after time.
The "fact" is that importing hundreds of thousands of adults from very poor countries and paying them six times the money they earn at home is a massive contributary factor to our youth employment, and the same cannot be said of elderly Brits retiring to the Costa Del Sol, whose presence there probably creates jobs for local businesses
And saves the NHS much more than it spends on the younger, healthier migrants that come to the UK from other EU countries.
How many 100,000s of extra school places do the Spanish need because of retired Brits?
'Feel free to critique the data on the economic contribution of EU immigrants.'
Feel free to critique the data on how wages were driven down by Labour's policy of mass immigration.
Or are you too thick to ever contribute anything other than desperately trying to justify one Labour's most unpopular policy's?
While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages. The same is true of California in the US. So it is a bit simplistic to say that immigration drives down wages.
It drives down the wages of the poorest in society and inflates the wages of the richest might be a less simplistic way of putting it
By how much for the lowest and highest deciles, and is that outweighed by an overall contribution to the treasury and job growth, what figures are you using?
hahaha
you might as well have typed "fair enough, you win"
I'm asking what data you are using
All you ever do is produce statistics compiled by people that are seeking to back up policies that they have introduced and that you favour. It is as meaningless to me as real life experience of the consequences of mass immigration appear to be to you.
You'll never convince me and I'll never convince you
But here is a story of some stats on immigration that were proven wrong
British pensioners wealthy enough retire abroad (and only the wealthy can) end up spending their life savings there, don't live in social housing, don't bring large extended families and don't work all the hours god sends for a minimum wage that is a massive pay rise compared to their homeland, forcing the youth of their new country on to benefits
Show me the data on Brits in Europe, we know for a fact that EU migrants to the UK are net contributors to the Treasury, more likely to be working than Brits, less likely to be in social housing and less likely to use public services.
"we know for a fact"
No, we don't actually.
With you it's just the same old bollocks rattled off time after time.
The "fact" is that importing hundreds of thousands of adults from very poor countries and paying them six times the money they earn at home is a massive contributary factor to our youth employment, and the same cannot be said of elderly Brits retiring to the Costa Del Sol, whose presence there probably creates jobs for local businesses
And saves the NHS much more than it spends on the younger, healthier migrants that come to the UK from other EU countries.
The xenophobes think importing pensioners and exporting workers in their twenties would be good for Britain. You just can't argue with them.
Indeed not. I wonder where the USA, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong etc etc would be today without immigrants. Still in the stone age presumably.
Did real incomes in those countries go up or down during that period? If they carried on going up there was spare capacity. If they went down it would be because there wasn't spare capacity.
The europhiles problem is that their constant evasions and lies about a referendum make any referendum increasingly hard to win, and so they avoid a referendum even more.
It's a strange negative feedback loop which means that the referendum will probably arrive at the moment of maximum risk for Britain's EU memberships, when the philes have run out of time and arguments, and all patience has gone, and we are most likely to vote Out.
Philes like you would have been better off putting the question to the people when things were good and Europe relatively popular. Blair should have gone for a vote (from a phile perspective) right after the 1997 GE.
I agree with that, actually. I'm not particularly Europhile - although I would vote in - and I'm glad we stayed out of the Euro.
'While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages.'
Check out www.resolutionfoundation growth without gain, median wages stagnated between 2003 -08 despite GDP growth of 11%.,just coincidence it happened during the same period as Labour's mass immigration?
'Feel free to critique the data on the economic contribution of EU immigrants.'
Feel free to critique the data on how wages were driven down by Labour's policy of mass immigration.
Or are you too thick to ever contribute anything other than desperately trying to justify one Labour's most unpopular policy's?
While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages. The same is true of California in the US. So it is a bit simplistic to say that immigration drives down wages.
It drives down the wages of the poorest in society and inflates the wages of the richest might be a less simplistic way of putting it
Yet there are queues of people from all the UK who want to move to London.
All the case of Stephen Pound's brother proves is that councils are hopeless at managing their "discretionary fund".
The government needs to step in and provide some clear direction. It does not need to pull back on it's overall policy.
There should be enough case studies by now for them to be able to make an informed decision.
Interestingly, Pound's brother would have been denied benefit if his flat was privately rented thanks to Labour's 2007 welfare reforms of Housing Benefit.
So that is a no then to widening this debate to encompass the whole comprehensive care assistance and financial benefits package provided for those people on renal dialysis at home? I just wanted to give you the chance to give a far fairer picture of how they will be really impacted by this one policy? And after you tried to emotively narrow down the whole debate on the spare bedroom subsidy into this small group to try to make your point to me earlier? And what about those home renal dialysis patients who have been living in private rental accommodation since this very same subsidy was removed from them under the last Labour government, I must have missed your campaign on here fighting for them.
@fitalass As is often the case with pbtories , you obfuscate and distort the point I made rather than answering it . You have the cheek to ask me to provide a set of figures which you could not do yourself in defense of your own argument . The fact is that a relatively small number of severely disabled people are being hurt financially because the government could not be bothered to take the time and trouble to draft a law which would not do so . You and the government look upon those effected as sad but necessary casualties of a bigger more important battle .
'Feel free to critique the data on the economic contribution of EU immigrants.'
Feel free to critique the data on how wages were driven down by Labour's policy of mass immigration.
Or are you too thick to ever contribute anything other than desperately trying to justify one Labour's most unpopular policy's?
While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages. The same is true of California in the US. So it is a bit simplistic to say that immigration drives down wages.
It drives down the wages of the poorest in society and inflates the wages of the richest might be a less simplistic way of putting it
By how much for the lowest and highest deciles, and is that outweighed by an overall contribution to the treasury and job growth, what figures are you using?
hahaha
you might as well have typed "fair enough, you win"
I'm asking what data you are using
All you ever do is produce statistics compiled by people that are seeking to back up policies that they have introduced and that you favour. It is as meaningless to me as real life experience of the consequences of mass immigration appear to be to you.
You'll never convince me and I'll never convince you
But here is a story of some stats on immigration that were proven wrong
All the case of Stephen Pound's brother proves is that councils are hopeless at managing their "discretionary fund".
The government needs to step in and provide some clear direction. It does not need to pull back on it's overall policy.
There should be enough case studies by now for them to be able to make an informed decision.
Interestingly, Pound's brother would have been denied benefit if his flat was privately rented thanks to Labour's 2007 welfare reforms of Housing Benefit.
I can at last begin to see why the Tories lead is slipping so inexorably despite an improving economy.
I just saw Rachel Reeves on Ch 4 News and she comes across an 'every(wo)man'. Genuine and concerned in a Harriet Harman sort of way. It's interesting to reflect on what the public must make of the contrast between her and IDS
While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages. The same is true of California in the US. So it is a bit simplistic to say that immigration drives down wages.
It drives down the wages of the poorest in society and inflates the wages of the richest might be a less simplistic way of putting it
By how much for the lowest and highest deciles, and is that outweighed by an overall contribution to the treasury and job growth, what figures are you using?
hahaha
you might as well have typed "fair enough, you win"
I'm asking what data you are using
All you ever do is produce statistics compiled by people that are seeking to back up policies that they have introduced and that you favour. It is as meaningless to me as real life experience of the consequences of mass immigration appear to be to you.
You'll never convince me and I'll never convince you
But here is a story of some stats on immigration that were proven wrong
I'm afraid that repeating something you believe over and over with no evidence doesn't work. I remember when you claimed that no one had died in Dagenham, theyd all been white flighters who had left.
Now you are just lying. I didn't say anything of the sort.
I said the massive drop in % of white Brits in Dagenham was due to white flight, yes.
And it is.
You know what, I used to think you had seen off other people when you recalled things they had said in the past as I believed you were being genuine. Now I know you are making it up as it is me you are lying about you seem even less worthy of respect than before.
"The Labour reforms did not apply to existing private sector tenants"
Is that true? I had not realised. If it is then there is actually no point of comparison between the Tory and the Labour legislation. Surely not even IDS would seek to obfuscate over that. Surely.
All the case of Stephen Pound's brother proves is that councils are hopeless at managing their "discretionary fund".
The government needs to step in and provide some clear direction. It does not need to pull back on it's overall policy.
There should be enough case studies by now for them to be able to make an informed decision.
Interestingly, Pound's brother would have been denied benefit if his flat was privately rented thanks to Labour's 2007 welfare reforms of Housing Benefit.
Can you explain why the Tories have excluded pensioners if this is about saving money and efficient use of housing stock?
Pensioner subsidies are being phased out tim - they are not excluded.
I can at last begin to see why the Tories lead is slipping so inexorably despite an improving economy.
I just saw Rachel Reeves on Ch 4 News and she comes across an 'every(wo)man'. Genuine and concerned in a Harriet Harman sort of way. It's interesting to reflect on what the public must make of the contrast between her and IDS
One (Labour?) speaker said during the bedroom tax debate that in his constituency there are people in private rented sector whose tenancies began before the 2008 labour reforms are still being awarded their full housing benefit entitlement.
"The Labour reforms did not apply to existing private sector tenants"
Is that true? I had not realised. If it is then there is actually no point of comparison between the Tory and the Labour legislation. Surely not even IDS would seek to obfuscate over that. Surely.
(a) the political class are deliberately murdering this country or (b) they're so bad it seems that way and (c) this country's energy policy is to run the national grid off diesel generators and (d) not only can you not run windmills when it's too cold you have to use power to turn them slowly so they don't ice up which possibly means (e) an absolute shed-load of diesel tankers might be needed in the middle of a bad winter and (f) a lot of these diesel generator farms are out in the sticks on country roads
Andrew Neil @afneil If this is a cold winter, fuel poverty and the NHS will come together for the government as a perfect storm. Many deaths. Mark my words.
I heard a theory that the number of older people who died last winter was enough to blunt the impact of this winter on the NHS. I think in general it won't be as bad as feared because of the political imperative to keep the thing together by gaffer tape if necessary. There may be some particularly dysfunctional hospitals that see some real horror stories though
One (Labour?) speaker said during the bedroom tax debate that in his constituency there are people in private rented sector whose tenancies began before the 2008 labour reforms are still being awarded their full housing benefit entitlement.
"The Labour reforms did not apply to existing private sector tenants"
Is that true? I had not realised. If it is then there is actually no point of comparison between the Tory and the Labour legislation. Surely not even IDS would seek to obfuscate over that. Surely.
So when IDS and other Tories claim that they are doing in the social housing sector what Labour did in the private sector they are actually fibbing? That surely cannot be true. I know that IDS has manipulated stats on a regular basis, but obfuscation like that would take him to a whole new level.
'Is that it? You're in way over your head here, go and look when wages as a share of GDP fell most, it's the 80s and had sod all to do with immigration '
Try reading the report, you might just learn something, but we won't be holding our breath.
I can at last begin to see why the Tories lead is slipping so inexorably despite an improving economy.
I just saw Rachel Reeves on Ch 4 News and she comes across an 'every(wo)man'. Genuine and concerned in a Harriet Harman sort of way. It's interesting to reflect on what the public must make of the contrast between her and IDS
Labour is doing well at getting pleasant, concerned, normal - and, let's face it, attractive - women into posts. I'm reminded of Luciana Berger's "you can't ask a girl a football question" response to the all-male Liverpool sports press when they 'caught her out' on who Bill Shankly was.
The sort of thing my wife would say --- no harm at all done among many women - who can't understand why such questions are relevant to anything. Reeves, Berger and Creasy. A trio to watch.
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 3m The chasm over the bedroom tax. Jack Dromey recounts a grandmother's suicide. Brooks Newmark says an extra £14 a week is "not a big ask".
I can at last begin to see why the Tories lead is slipping so inexorably despite an improving economy.
I just saw Rachel Reeves on Ch 4 News and she comes across an 'every(wo)man'. Genuine and concerned in a Harriet Harman sort of way. It's interesting to reflect on what the public must make of the contrast between her and IDS
I notice none of you leftie idiots responded to the link I posted (twice) about Harman being caught out lying about the spare room subsidy, truth hurt does it?
Andrew Neil @afneil If this is a cold winter, fuel poverty and the NHS will come together for the government as a perfect storm. Many deaths. Mark my words.
A&E is entirely Lansley and Hunts fault of course with Camerons disinterest in the reorganisation of his oh so personal priority a personal disgrace. Fuel poverty more complex.
I have said before - the weather is key. Where is PB's resident weather expert Gin when you want him?
What were we saying about the unheralded excellence of Heathrow?
I'm en route to Bangkok. EVA Air.
I left my flat in Camden at 5.42pm, to climb in a taxi; I was sitting drinking wine in the SAS Lounge, Terminal 3, at 6.53pm.
That's one hour and one minute to go from my central London apartment to Heathrow airside, all checks completed. I challenge any global airport to beat that.
Get a black card from Natwest,I am sure you will qualify. Then free access to most of the airport lounges in the world,one of my many pleasures when travelling. Interesting anecdote,once when travelling with my daughter,I got her to sign in as Mrs Jayfdee,she went bright red,but I assured her they would not dare challenge us,and the receptionist must have thought,lucky old rich B****rd.
@Old Labour - apologies, you are absolutely right:
2008 LHA: Only affects new cases from the date that the policy was implemented, Existing Housing Benefit recipients are not affected by having too many bedrooms in existing properties. The criteria are only applied for new tenants, tenants moving to new properties or in some cases where tenancy agreements are renegotiated.
So that is a no then to widening this debate to encompass the whole comprehensive care assistance and financial benefits package provided for those people on renal dialysis at home? I just wanted to give you the chance to give a far fairer picture of how they will be really impacted by this one policy? And after you tried to emotively narrow down the whole debate on the spare bedroom subsidy into this small group to try to make your point to me earlier? And what about those home renal dialysis patients who have been living in private rental accommodation since this very same subsidy was removed from them under the last Labour government, I must have missed your campaign on here fighting for them.
@fitalass As is often the case with pbtories , you obfuscate and distort the point I made rather than answering it . You have the cheek to ask me to provide a set of figures which you could not do yourself in defense of your own argument . The fact is that a relatively small number of severely disabled people are being hurt financially because the government could not be bothered to take the time and trouble to draft a law which would not do so . You and the government look upon those effected as sad but necessary casualties of a bigger more important battle .
So once again no figures from you just waffling claptrap . As posted elsewhere a renal dialysis patient in privately rented accommodation prior to 2008 would still be receiving full housing benefit .
So once again no figures from you just waffling claptrap . As posted elsewhere a renal dialysis patient in privately rented accommodation prior to 2008 would still be receiving full housing benefit .
If they were fit and suffered kidney problems as Jools Holland's Hootenanny was on, on 1.1.2009, and then needed the help, would they have got it?
One (Labour?) speaker said during the bedroom tax debate that in his constituency there are people in private rented sector whose tenancies began before the 2008 labour reforms are still being awarded their full housing benefit entitlement.
"The Labour reforms did not apply to existing private sector tenants"
Is that true? I had not realised. If it is then there is actually no point of comparison between the Tory and the Labour legislation. Surely not even IDS would seek to obfuscate over that. Surely.
So when IDS and other Tories claim that they are doing in the social housing sector what Labour did in the private sector they are actually fibbing? That surely cannot be true. I know that IDS has manipulated stats on a regular basis, but obfuscation like that would take him to a whole new level.
When in doubt, always assume GCC is telling porkies.
FOI request sent about a year ago:
'How much does the council spend, each time and per year, on removing the cone from the head of the statue of Wellington on Royal Exchange Square?'
Response:
'The council does not keep records on the number of times the cone is removed. The Lighting Section remove the cone when carrying out routine maintenance within the city centre.'
When in doubt, always assume GCC is telling porkies.
FOI request sent about a year ago:
'How much does the council spend, each time and per year, on removing the cone from the head of the statue of Wellington on Royal Exchange Square?'
Response:
'The council does not keep records on the number of times the cone is removed. The Lighting Section remove the cone when carrying out routine maintenance within the city centre.'
LOL. On a weekend, I'm sure the Glasgow police have more to worry about than pranksters placing a traffic cone on top of a statue.
Your man with a long stick is precisely the crack, rapid response unit used by GCC in these crisis situations.
One of my Scottish friends who originally hails from Glasgow, says Glasgow Labour have clean up/crisis/covert management operations and skills that the CIA would be proud of.
If Scotland does goes Independent, that's where your National Intelligence organisation is coming from, Glasgow Labour.
If that doesn't swing it for the no side, I don't know what will.
@Old Labour - apologies, you are absolutely right:
2008 LHA: Only affects new cases from the date that the policy was implemented, Existing Housing Benefit recipients are not affected by having too many bedrooms in existing properties. The criteria are only applied for new tenants, tenants moving to new properties or in some cases where tenancy agreements are renegotiated.
It does seem he has a significant truth problem. And it turns out that all those on here parroting the line that the Tories are just doing what Labour did in 2008 have been talking complete nonsense. Labour did not exempt pensioners either - but then as it was not retrospectively applied, that was not a problem. When you actually look at it (which I have now done), the 2008 legislation is very, very different in any number of ways.
It wasn't meant to be. You of all people with your disdain for the pseuds and the pretentious can surely see it?
Harriet Harman a woman of the people?
Isnt she from an exceptionally privileged background, and didn't she hypocritically send her kids to Grammar school?
But I suppose as tims champagne chats and TSE's Latin phrases are the norm on here I can see why she might be considered rough & ready...
Before your time San but you would have enjoyed the Henry Root letters. ( a series of spoofs to the high and mighty ). Here's Henry Root ( William Donaldson ) to Harriet
"He had an unerring eye for the approach which would rankle most with his recipients. Writing to Harriet Harman, then of "The National Council for so-called Civil Liberties", he began: "I saw you on television the other night… Why should an attractive lass like you want to confuse her pretty little head with complicated matters of politics, jurisprudence, sociology and the so-called rights of man? Leave such considerations to us men, that's my advice to you. A pretty girl like you should have settled down by now with a husband and a couple of kiddies." If she must work, he continued, she should consider a career such as "that of model, actress, ballroom dancing instructor or newsreader", before enclosing a pound for her to buy a pretty dress and urging the future MP to get in touch with "my friend Lord Delfont".
One of my Scottish friends who originally hails from Glasgow, says Glasgow Labour have clean up/crisis/covert management operations and skills that the CIA would be proud of. If Scotland does goes Independent, that's where your National Intelligence organisation is coming from, Glasgow Labour. If that doesn't swing it for the no side, I don't know what will.
I don't usually associate intelligence with Glasgow Labor, more a ferocious, low cunning. Come the glorious day, you'll be able to see the column of smoke from burning files in England.
One of my Scottish friends who originally hails from Glasgow, says Glasgow Labour have clean up/crisis/covert management operations and skills that the CIA would be proud of. If Scotland does goes Independent, that's where your National Intelligence organisation is coming from, Glasgow Labour. If that doesn't swing it for the no side, I don't know what will.
I don't usually associate intelligence with Glasgow Labor, more a ferocious, low cunning. Come the glorious day, you'll be able to see the column of smoke from burning files in England.
It's going to be like the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979 when the Ayatollah's men seized the Embassy?
I was thinking of going to the drink next week, but if that kind of threat has any chance of being carried out, in Latin or English, I think I will give it the Jacques Villeneuve!
I was thinking of going to the drink next week, but if that kind of threat has any chance of being carried out, in Latin or English, I think I will give it the Jacques Villeneuve!
1) It wasn't a threat
2) Alas I won't be able to make it, I think Neil is going, he will make sure you are well looked after, and get home safely.
One of my Scottish friends who originally hails from Glasgow, says Glasgow Labour have clean up/crisis/covert management operations and skills that the CIA would be proud of. If Scotland does goes Independent, that's where your National Intelligence organisation is coming from, Glasgow Labour. If that doesn't swing it for the no side, I don't know what will.
I don't usually associate intelligence with Glasgow Labor, more a ferocious, low cunning. Come the glorious day, you'll be able to see the column of smoke from burning files in England.
It's going to be like the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979 when the Ayatollah's men seized the Embassy?
One of my Scottish friends who originally hails from Glasgow, says Glasgow Labour have clean up/crisis/covert management operations and skills that the CIA would be proud of. If Scotland does goes Independent, that's where your National Intelligence organisation is coming from, Glasgow Labour. If that doesn't swing it for the no side, I don't know what will.
I don't usually associate intelligence with Glasgow Labor, more a ferocious, low cunning. Come the glorious day, you'll be able to see the column of smoke from burning files in England.
It's going to be like the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979 when the Ayatollah's men seized the Embassy?
"But I suppose as tims champagne chats and TSE's Latin phrases are the norm on here I can see why she might be considered rough & ready... "
A poor segue but so as not to go OT again.....did anyone see Geordie Gregg's piece on Lucien Freud last night? I thought he was very excellent and his book it definitely one I'll read.
What I couldn't reconcile was how someone who had obvious insight class and enjoyment in the work of Freud be editor of such a Philistine rag as The Mail on Sunday?
One brief observation. I used to enjoy reading this site and occasionally contributing.. I lost the access details and couldnt be bthred to find them.
Now it comes across like a bar with one person shouting and dominating the site. As with all pub bores, through volume and not insight. People leave because they can't stand the abuse and lies.
Have I added much? I would say so, some not: at least I thought before I posted. maybe some advertising revenue. Grit in the oyster leads to pearls. Shit in the oyster leads to food poisoning and ultimately death. This site is the oyster.
So what, if Cameron stays as PM he'll campaign for a yes vote and it'll win UKIP need a different Tory leader
Or to be more accurate Farage knows perfectly well he's not about to storm the commons and win dozens of MPs so his strategy is to push the tory party as far towards full blown OUT of Europe as he can.
What is more his strategy is already having some success.
Gove and Hammond would say No to Europe... and seven Cabinet colleagues including Duncan Smith privately agree
That's before the EU elections. Imagine the rhetoric and possibly policy shifting if the tories have a dire EU elections?
If Cameron then loses the election in 2015 the Europe genie will be well and truly out of the bottle and any future tory leader will not just have to repeat Cammie's referendum pledge but there will be a likely civil war in the tory party over whether the party and any future leadership should campaign explicitly on that with an unambiguous OUT position.
There's also the small matter of Farage and kipper voters simply not trusting Cammie's Cast Iron promise on an EU referendum. Which is hardly surprising considering so many of Cameron's own MPs clearly don't trust him either, so we get ludicrous spectacles like the absurd private members bill posturing last week and this week.
Are kipper voters all motivated primarily by OUT? Nope, but Farage is more than happy to use immigration as a weapon to push the tories ever closer to his preferred policy positions.
Farage and UKIP want out of Europe. The clue is in the name. They simply don't believe Cammie can deliver them that. Which is why they will pile the pressure on the tories so that they can have a referendum a few years after Cammie's proposed one with a tory leadership far more likely to campaign explicitly on OUT.
Why does any of this matter?
Because the kippers are quite clearly the most pressing problem Cammie & Osbrowne have.
It ain't little Ed that has them panicking it's Farage. Unless Farage implodes in a Kilroy-Silk like manner there's no way he and UKIP are crashing back to to 3% before 2015.
While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages. The same is true of California in the US. So it is a bit simplistic to say that immigration drives down wages.
It drives down the wages of the poorest in society and inflates the wages of the richest might be a less simplistic way of putting it
By how much for the lowest and highest deciles, and is that outweighed by an overall contribution to the treasury and job growth, what figures are you using?
hahaha
you might as well have typed "fair enough, you win"
I'm asking what data you are using
All you ever do is produce statistics compiled by people that are seeking to back up policies that they have introduced and that you favour. It is as meaningless to me as real life experience of the consequences of mass immigration appear to be to you.
You'll never convince me and I'll never convince you
But here is a story of some stats on immigration that were proven wrong
I'm afraid that repeating something you believe over and over with no evidence doesn't work. I remember when you claimed that no one had died in Dagenham, theyd all been white flighters who had left.
Now you are just lying. I didn't say anything of the sort.
I said the massive drop in % of white Brits in Dagenham was due to white flight, yes.
And it is.
You know what, I used to think you had seen off other people when you recalled things they had said in the past as I believed you were being genuine. Now I know you are making it up as it is me you are lying about you seem even less worthy of respect than before.
Bloody hell, took you long enough to work him out.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10416099/UKs-Roma-population-much-higher-than-previously-thought.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/top-judge-surprised-that-controversial-eu-laws-that-we-blocked-are-now-legally-binding-8934773.html?origin=internalSearch
Quite correct - why risk it?
Are they economically irrational?
"Personally, I should imagine the true number is a lot lower, but that's just an opinion, with only my feeling... to back it up."
http://lartsocial.org/roma
you might as well have typed "fair enough, you win"
Do you think people moving within the UK to London are competing for jobs with those from recent EU accession countries?
I am genuinely surprised at you, as you are clearly a very nice, decent lady, despite our political differences. If being against a policy that disproportionately smashes the disabled is "wrong side of the argument", happy to be on the wrong side.
The bedroom tax is a terribly devised policy - had not been thought through. That much is clear.
How much wine you had?
The idea that somehow this Government doesn't care about, or has suddenly stopped providing adequately for the very clear and genuine needs of the severely disabled or those on renal dialysis just because they are removing a public housing bedroom subsidy enjoyed by a far wider group of tenants is simple untrue. Which facts are you referring to ? Please be specific and give references so that I can check them out .
As is often the case with pbtories , you obfuscate and distort the point I made rather than answering it . You have the cheek to ask me to provide a set of figures which you could not do yourself in defense of your own argument . The fact is that a relatively small number of severely disabled people are being hurt financially because the government could not be bothered to take the time and trouble to draft a law which would not do so . You and the government look upon those effected as sad but necessary casualties of a bigger more important battle .
I would support the policy in the hypothetical scenario that a) there were enough beds b) it applied to pensioners c) it didn't include the disabled d) people were able to sublet public housing
It would no longer be the Bedroom Tax, it would be a sensible policy in another place and time.
"English authorities could be forced to return £26 million to government if they don’t start spending
Millions of pounds of unspent emergency housing funding could be returned to the government, after councils used just a fraction of their combined £155 million pot in the first half of the year"
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/finance/councils-fail-to-spend-hardship-funds/6529389.article
You'll never convince me and I'll never convince you
But here is a story of some stats on immigration that were proven wrong
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18539472
Obviously.
'While I realise this doesn't tell the whole story, it's worth noting that London had the greatest proportion of immigrants in the country, and three highest wages.'
Check out www.resolutionfoundation growth without gain, median wages stagnated between 2003 -08 despite GDP growth of 11%.,just coincidence it happened during the same period as Labour's mass immigration?
The government needs to step in and provide some clear direction. It does not need to pull back on it's overall policy.
There should be enough case studies by now for them to be able to make an informed decision.
Interestingly, Pound's brother would have been denied benefit if his flat was privately rented thanks to Labour's 2007 welfare reforms of Housing Benefit.
Council attempt to stop yobs putting traffic cones on top of iconic city monument is stopped after online outcry by 10,000 people
Statue of Duke of Wellington in Glasgow is repeatedly targeted by vandals
I just saw Rachel Reeves on Ch 4 News and she comes across an 'every(wo)man'. Genuine and concerned in a Harriet Harman sort of way. It's interesting to reflect on what the public must make of the contrast between her and IDS
I said the massive drop in % of white Brits in Dagenham was due to white flight, yes.
And it is.
You know what, I used to think you had seen off other people when you recalled things they had said in the past as I believed you were being genuine. Now I know you are making it up as it is me you are lying about you seem even less worthy of respect than before.
Is that true? I had not realised. If it is then there is actually no point of comparison between the Tory and the Labour legislation. Surely not even IDS would seek to obfuscate over that. Surely.
£100 call out fee - someone is trying it on.
Can you tell me why Labour pioneered this policy in 2007?
Labour made a judgement that anyone suffering kidney failure would not be allowed an extra bedroom from 2007.......
It probably just needs a man in a hard hat with a long stick if they feel they must remove it so that someone else can replace it the following night.
(a) the political class are deliberately murdering this country
or
(b) they're so bad it seems that way
and
(c) this country's energy policy is to run the national grid off diesel generators
and
(d) not only can you not run windmills when it's too cold you have to use power to turn them slowly so they don't ice up
which possibly means
(e) an absolute shed-load of diesel tankers might be needed in the middle of a bad winter
and
(f) a lot of these diesel generator farms are out in the sticks on country roads
guess (g)
I can't imagine why he'd want a change of identity so soon!
'Is that it?
You're in way over your head here, go and look when wages as a share of GDP fell most, it's the 80s and had sod all to do with immigration '
Try reading the report, you might just learn something, but we won't be holding our breath.
The sort of thing my wife would say --- no harm at all done among many women - who can't understand why such questions are relevant to anything. Reeves, Berger and Creasy. A trio to watch.
The chasm over the bedroom tax. Jack Dromey recounts a grandmother's suicide. Brooks Newmark says an extra £14 a week is "not a big ask".
Tory Scum @tim
Was that the 53 year old lady that had lifelong auto-immune system defiency?
Seems like she is every bit as good a liar as Harman though:http://order-order.com/2013/11/12/labours-flawed-opposition-to-housing-benefit-reform-rachel-reeves-claims-disabled-people-cannot-work/
I notice none of you leftie idiots responded to the link I posted (twice) about Harman being caught out lying about the spare room subsidy, truth hurt does it?
It's been part of the welfare system since 1948.
Interesting anecdote,once when travelling with my daughter,I got her to sign in as Mrs Jayfdee,she went bright red,but I assured her they would not dare challenge us,and the receptionist must have thought,lucky old rich B****rd.
2008 LHA: Only affects new cases from the date that the policy was implemented, Existing Housing Benefit recipients are not affected by having too many bedrooms in existing properties. The criteria are only applied for new tenants, tenants moving to new properties or in some cases where tenancy agreements are renegotiated.
http://notpaying.tumblr.com/post/55537295011/how-the-bedroom-tax-differs-from-the-local-housing
Put simply, you actually cannot trust a single thing that IDS says. Genuinely shocking.
"Spoof post"
It wasn't meant to be. You of all people with your disdain for the pseuds and the pretentious can surely see it?
Nope.
Welfare by Bedroom is a Labour invention.
FOI request sent about a year ago:
'How much does the council spend, each time and per year, on removing the cone from the head of the statue of Wellington on Royal Exchange Square?'
Response:
'The council does not keep records on the number of times the cone is removed. The Lighting Section remove the cone when carrying out routine maintenance within the city centre.'
http://tinyurl.com/kb7qfqr
20 years time they are a pensioner - do they get to move back to the 4 bed house ? No.
Pensioner benefits are being cut.
Isnt she from an exceptionally privileged background, and didn't she hypocritically send her kids to Grammar school?
But I suppose as tims champagne chats and TSE's Latin phrases are the norm on here I can see why she might be considered rough & ready...
On a weekend, I'm sure the Glasgow police have more to worry about than pranksters placing a traffic cone on top of a statue.
Just using the logic displayed when childcare vouchers were cut - and unconceived sperm cried out in pain.
The pensioners of tomorrow are having their spare room subsidy removed - Cam hammers tomorrow's pensioners today
It's an attraction in its own right.
If Scotland does goes Independent, that's where your National Intelligence organisation is coming from, Glasgow Labour.
If that doesn't swing it for the no side, I don't know what will.
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16#Latin_text_and_translation
"He had an unerring eye for the approach which would rankle most with his recipients. Writing to Harriet Harman, then of "The National Council for so-called Civil Liberties", he began: "I saw you on television the other night… Why should an attractive lass like you want to confuse her pretty little head with complicated matters of politics, jurisprudence, sociology and the so-called rights of man? Leave such considerations to us men, that's my advice to you. A pretty girl like you should have settled down by now with a husband and a couple of kiddies." If she must work, he continued, she should consider a career such as "that of model, actress, ballroom dancing instructor or newsreader", before enclosing a pound for her to buy a pretty dress and urging the future MP to get in touch with "my friend Lord Delfont".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1492841/William-Donaldson.html
Come the glorious day, you'll be able to see the column of smoke from burning files in England.
I was thinking of going to the drink next week, but if that kind of threat has any chance of being carried out, in Latin or English, I think I will give it the Jacques Villeneuve!
'Isnt she from an exceptionally privileged background, and didn't she hypocritically send her kids to Grammar school?
Yes,Harman sent her son to a selective grammar school in Kent, didn't want her son mixing with the plebs in Peckham.
Yet another Labour fake.
2) Alas I won't be able to make it, I think Neil is going, he will make sure you are well looked after, and get home safely.
"But I suppose as tims champagne chats and TSE's Latin phrases are the norm on here I can see why she might be considered rough & ready... "
A poor segue but so as not to go OT again.....did anyone see Geordie Gregg's piece on Lucien Freud last night? I thought he was very excellent and his book it definitely one I'll read.
What I couldn't reconcile was how someone who had obvious insight class and enjoyment in the work of Freud be editor of such a Philistine rag as The Mail on Sunday?
"I grew up in Glasgow in the 1970s. If you want to know what Glasgow was like in the 1970s, go there now."
No pleasing you - Cam is cutting benefits for pensioners who arent even pensioners yet.
Good to see you again. I know these trips to rehab can be taxing. For all our sakes lets hope they got it right this time.
Now it comes across like a bar with one person shouting and dominating the site. As with all pub bores, through volume and not insight. People leave because they can't stand the abuse and lies.
Have I added much? I would say so, some not: at least I thought before I posted. maybe some advertising revenue. Grit in the oyster leads to pearls. Shit in the oyster leads to food poisoning and ultimately death. This site is the oyster.
All the best.
If true, IF true, then the council need a good slap, but I don't see how you are trying to blame the government.
Or to be more accurate Farage knows perfectly well he's not about to storm the commons and win dozens of MPs so his strategy is to push the tory party as far towards full blown OUT of Europe as he can.
What is more his strategy is already having some success. That's before the EU elections. Imagine the rhetoric and possibly policy shifting if the tories have a dire EU elections?
If Cameron then loses the election in 2015 the Europe genie will be well and truly out of the bottle and any future tory leader will not just have to repeat Cammie's referendum pledge but there will be a likely civil war in the tory party over whether the party and any future leadership should campaign explicitly on that with an unambiguous OUT position.
There's also the small matter of Farage and kipper voters simply not trusting Cammie's Cast Iron promise on an EU referendum. Which is hardly surprising considering so many of Cameron's own MPs clearly don't trust him either, so we get ludicrous spectacles like the absurd private members bill posturing last week and this week.
Are kipper voters all motivated primarily by OUT? Nope, but Farage is more than happy to use immigration as a weapon to push the tories ever closer to his preferred policy positions.
Farage and UKIP want out of Europe. The clue is in the name. They simply don't believe Cammie can deliver them that. Which is why they will pile the pressure on the tories so that they can have a referendum a few years after Cammie's proposed one with a tory leadership far more likely to campaign explicitly on OUT.
Why does any of this matter?
Because the kippers are quite clearly the most pressing problem Cammie & Osbrowne have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
It ain't little Ed that has them panicking it's Farage. Unless Farage implodes in a Kilroy-Silk like manner there's no way he and UKIP are crashing back to to 3% before 2015.
"Now it comes across like a bar with one person shouting and dominating the site"
If you don't like Eagles posts why don't you just fast forward onto one you do?