politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Quantifying the great cultural divide: those wanting blunt lea

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jeremy Corbyn
‏
Verified account

@jeremycorbyn
3m3 minutes ago
More
.@Theresa_May voted to triple tuition fees and saddle students with an average £40,000 in debt.

There's no need to "review" that. Labour will scrap fees, bring back maintenance grants and make education free.

May really is absolutely crap at politics isn't she?

By half-agreeing with Labour that the system is broken, and then proposing some minor fudges, she's just about to move the Overton Window on HE funding firmly towards Jezza's position.

The government should scrap immediately the 6% interest rate on loans. It is outrageous.

welshowl said:

Casino_Royale said:

Any graduate (assuming employment) will be paying 20% IT, 12% NI, 9% repayments and probably 5% pension on any salary over 25k. A 41% tax without pension or 46% with it.

At over 45k, it would be 40% IT, 2% NI and 9% repayments. That's 51% tax without pension or 56% with it.

There is little prospect of this disappearing until they are well into their 50s. Out of that net income you'd be expected to pay high rents in London/SE and save for a deposit, which is very difficult.

That doesn't seem fair to me. It's no wonder the under 30s are turning to socialism: they are already paying socialist taxes without having any capital.

I seem to recall the figure being bandied about 20 years ago to justify the vast expansion in HE was that graduates earned around £400K (then) over a lifetime more than non graduates.

It clearly didn't seem to dawn on the proponents of such a huge expansion that expanding the supply of graduates would affect their "price" so to speak. All the rest is just chickens coming home to roost.

We have created a bloated HE sector and got the young to pay for it on tick, on the whopping con that it'll be worth it for them in the long run. It could never be, when all we have done is create a paper chase qualifications arms race for anyone unfortunate enough to be under about 40.

Well indeed, and look at where the biggest swings to Labour were at the last GE..

rottenborough said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, it's a bit Brownian. She's a micromanager, but the PM has to be able to see the big picture.

Greening on HE:

https://www.justinegreening.co.uk/news/higher-education-options

Much though I admire Greening, my inner grammar Nazi began goose-stepping in a fashion even John Cleese would blench at when I read this line:

'Overwhelmingly, all degrees cost students £9k per year in fees...'

Yes. The "all" is not only superfluous but wrong. Maybe "each student" would be somewhat clearer too.

Comprehensive education init :-)

Oi! I had a compruhensuf edjookayshan and I can still speke and right Unglesh.

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

rural_voter said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

David_Evershed said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile. in Germany: https://twitter.com/afneil/status/965499042510843904

The new SPD leader, I think, has backed the coalition deal. We find out the result on 4 March, which I think is also the date of the Italian election.

This polling with AfD on 25% and SPD on 14% will have a real impact on the way SPD members see the value of a coalition with Merkel/CDU. CDU are only on 26% themselves.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.

Bleak. Very bleak.

The new (permanent) SPD leader was the flagbearer of the deal - a good communicator and a more authentic voice than Schulz - before she became leader.

I don't think focussing on East Germany - where the SPD lose votes to Die Linke (The Left which for those not familiar is exactly what it sounds like)- is that helpful.

The question for the CDU is "we'll back the deal, but is Merkel the right leader" and the question for the SPD is "do we want a disaster of an election now or in five years".

I don't follow why Die Linke is persona non grata. The online descriptions make them sound like a democratic Socialist party of Jeremy Corbyn, Seamus Milne, Jon Lansman and Dennis Skinner. They're not considered a threat to order and stability as a Communist party would be or as a racist hard-right party would be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Office_for_the_Protection_of_the_Constitution

It's the history - IIRC they are the old communist party of the GDR

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, it's a bit Brownian. She's a micromanager, but the PM has to be able to see the big picture.

Greening on HE:

https://www.justinegreening.co.uk/news/higher-education-options

Much though I admire Greening, my inner grammar Nazi began goose-stepping in a fashion even John Cleese would blench at when I read this line:

'Overwhelmingly, all degrees cost students £9k per year in fees...'

Yes. The "all" is not only superfluous but wrong. Maybe "each student" would be somewhat clearer too.

I would have said it should be, 'Tuition fees for the overwhelming majority of courses are £9k per year.'

That would still be wrong, but it would be coherent.

Is there anywhere that doesn't charge £9k a year?

Uncapped, Russell Group universities could easily charge a full market rate of £25-30k annual fees for degrees like medicine.

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Sandpit said:

LOL at Dan Hodges getting in a Twitter spat with Morus of this parish...
https://order-order.com/2018/02/19/hodges-v-hendopolis/

I think Hodges has a point. They showed the front page on the Marr show.

That was the BBC, Neil's tweets on the front pages is him acting in a personal capacity.

As we saw with Sally Bercow posting on twitter can cost you a lot of money.

I suspect that the courts would look very differently on tweeting the front page of a newspaper and editorialising in the way that La Bercow did.

But I can quite understand why Neil doesn't want to take that risk.

Mr. Owls, also (forgot to add and have been afk for a little while), what's Labour's policy for getting the money to fund giveaway number seventy-three-and-a-half?

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jeremy Corbyn
‏
Verified account

@jeremycorbyn
3m3 minutes ago
More
.@Theresa_May voted to triple tuition fees and saddle students with an average £40,000 in debt.

There's no need to "review" that. Labour will scrap fees, bring back maintenance grants and make education free.

May really is absolutely crap at politics isn't she?

By half-agreeing with Labour that the system is broken, and then proposing some minor fudges, she's just about to move the Overton Window on HE funding firmly towards Jezza's position.

The government should scrap immediately the 6% interest rate on loans. It is outrageous.

Absolutely. They really snuck that one in. Outrageous really.

Mine is at 1.5%.

Half thinking of paying it off, my mortgage rate will be 1.39%...

Though then again Corbyn might write it off, and being able to access the capital might be worth more than £4.66 a year. Hmm what to do.

Cyclefree said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jeremy Corbyn
‏
Verified account

@jeremycorbyn
3m3 minutes ago
More
.@Theresa_May voted to triple tuition fees and saddle students with an average £40,000 in debt.

There's no need to "review" that. Labour will scrap fees, bring back maintenance grants and make education free.

May really is absolutely crap at politics isn't she?

By half-agreeing with Labour that the system is broken, and then proposing some minor fudges, she's just about to move the Overton Window on HE funding firmly towards Jezza's position.

The government should scrap immediately the 6% interest rate on loans. It is outrageous.

The 'outrageous' effect it has is entirely to make the student-loan tax more progressive, since only graduates who are very highly paid in the future will pay any more as a result of the high interest rate. In objective terms, I'm not sure that changing the system to benefit future top lawyers and bankers should be a high priority of policy, but in political terms cutting the interest rate would be a low-cost way of making it look as though the government is doing something to alleviate the burden. So the government should do it.

Alternatively, and more radically, I think that it's worth looking at a complete restructuring whereby student loan repayments get rebranded to what they really are - a graduate tax - and changed into a hypothecated higher education fund rather than treated as individual debts.

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, it's a bit Brownian. She's a micromanager, but the PM has to be able to see the big picture.

Greening on HE:

https://www.justinegreening.co.uk/news/higher-education-options

Much though I admire Greening, my inner grammar Nazi began goose-stepping in a fashion even John Cleese would blench at when I read this line:

'Overwhelmingly, all degrees cost students £9k per year in fees...'

Yes. The "all" is not only superfluous but wrong. Maybe "each student" would be somewhat clearer too.

I would have said it should be, 'Tuition fees for the overwhelming majority of courses are £9k per year.'

That would still be wrong, but it would be coherent.

It's certainly wrong. Many courses, possibly even the majority, are not worth £9K a year, don't cost that to put on and generate debts that are, on average, somewhat unlikely to be fully repaid. Some, classically STEM subjects, cost more to provide and also give significantly greater economic advantages to the student. What the current mess shows is how badly a market can work with inaccurate and insufficient information.

There is a pitiful or non existent correlation between the cost of producing the course and the fees. Universities are being completely dishonest about this. There is an even worse correlation between the cost of taking the course and its economic benefit. Again Universities have contrived to conceal that information.

We can deal with this mess either by having a graduate tax (where the more successful pay more back into the system) or by limiting the level of fees that a University can charge to cost +X%. Alternatively, we can just make it all "free" again benefitting the better off at the cost of the poor. The graduate tax seems the sensible option but if it is followed it is inevitable that the University sector may finally discover what "austerity" means.

tlg86 said:

Another thing on libel. During the hours after the Westminster Bridge attack, posts naming the perpetrator were deleted because they didn't come from a reputable source. Yet, it was okay for the wrong name to be posted because it had been incorrectly named by Channel 4 news.

I'd have thought Mr Cox could sue the MoS, and if he wins, ask people on Twitter to delete Tweets showing the front page.

That's the Reynolds Defence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v_Times_Newspapers_Ltd

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, it's a bit Brownian. She's a micromanager, but the PM has to be able to see the big picture.

Greening on HE:

https://www.justinegreening.co.uk/news/higher-education-options

Much though I admire Greening, my inner grammar Nazi began goose-stepping in a fashion even John Cleese would blench at when I read this line:

'Overwhelmingly, all degrees cost students £9k per year in fees...'

Yes. The "all" is not only superfluous but wrong. Maybe "each student" would be somewhat clearer too.

I would have said it should be, 'Tuition fees for the overwhelming majority of courses are £9k per year.'

That would still be wrong, but it would be coherent.

It's certainly wrong. Many courses, possibly even the majority, are not worth £9K a year, don't cost that to put on and generate debts that are, on average, somewhat unlikely to be fully repaid. Some, classically STEM subjects, cost more to provide and also give significantly greater economic advantages to the student. What the current mess shows is how badly a market can work with inaccurate and insufficient information.

There is a pitiful or non existent correlation between the cost of producing the course and the fees. Universities are being completely dishonest about this. There is an even worse correlation between the cost of taking the course and its economic benefit. Again Universities have contrived to conceal that information.

We can deal with this mess either by having a graduate tax (where the more successful pay more back into the system) or by limiting the level of fees that a University can charge to cost +X%. Alternatively, we can just make it all "free" again benefitting the better off at the cost of the poor. The graduate tax seems the sensible option but if it is followed it is inevitable that the University sector may finally discover what "austerity" means.

Quite. If you actually had such a tax going forwards on new graduates I suspect the market would sort the wheat from the chaff pdq. 17/18 year olds would become adept at working out the cost/benefits so that 25K to study chemical engineering at Imperial or medicine at Cambridge may still be worth it, 3K to study media at Bognor FE college may still be 3K down the drain.


My only amazement is why (seemingly) more 17/18 year olds don't do this now anyway. Maybe they do and come to a different conclusion than I would.

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Another thing on libel. During the hours after the Westminster Bridge attack, posts naming the perpetrator were deleted because they didn't come from a reputable source. Yet, it was okay for the wrong name to be posted because it had been incorrectly named by Channel 4 news.

I'd have thought Mr Cox could sue the MoS, and if he wins, ask people on Twitter to delete Tweets showing the front page.

That's the Reynolds Defence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v_Times_Newspapers_Ltd

The funny thing is, in a way, Henderson has not done himself any favours for any future legal proceedings. Let's say he Tweets a front page with a claim which turns out to be libelous. The aggrieved party could point out that Henderson had previously taken steps to not libel someone else and so should have taken more care in other cases.

Alistair said:

MarqueeMark said:

Alistair said:

MarqueeMark said:

Alistair said:

MarqueeMark said:

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It’s a false dichotomy. It should be possible to express yourself clearly without giving unnecessary offence.

Some of our politicians manage neither.

I don't think that's true any longer, there is a segment of society who's role has become to be perpetually offended, and be the forever victim.

Yes, and they are all columnists in right wing papers.

And Polly Toynbee never takes offence, never I tell you. No-one in The Guardian ever does.

*stifles a titter*

Anyone saying "all" is just setting themselves up for a fall.

Hmmm, seems a lot of people are getting annoyed at my sweeping generalisation. I must be onto something here.

No, you're just being prat.

Think I've spotted another one of those perpetually offended snowflakes.

No, just a vigilant prat-spotter.

I mean, to be fair, those newspaper columnists in left-wing papers who have taken offense are getting offended by things like exploitative labour practices amongst the poorest of society. The right wing columnists are getting offended that they can't sexually harass women or that gay people are being treated as normal members of society.

Gay people are being treated as normal members of society because they can get married. Under a law passed by right-wing Tories. After Labour fannied about for 13 years.

Labour is the party that has sexually segregated meetings. Where's the outrage about that for these left-wing newspaper columnists? Where's the outrgage about holocaust deniers and anti-semites being allowed into the Labour Party?

And while we're at it, where's their outrage that every Labour Government leaves office with lower employment than it inherits? Let's have a debate about who REALLY fucks over the poorest in society....

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jeremy Corbyn
‏
Verified account

@jeremycorbyn
3m3 minutes ago
More
.@Theresa_May voted to triple tuition fees and saddle students with an average £40,000 in debt.

There's no need to "review" that. Labour will scrap fees, bring back maintenance grants and make education free.

May really is absolutely crap at politics isn't she?

By half-agreeing with Labour that the system is broken, and then proposing some minor fudges, she's just about to move the Overton Window on HE funding firmly towards Jezza's position.

The government should scrap immediately the 6% interest rate on loans. It is outrageous.

Absolutely. They really snuck that one in. Outrageous really.

Yes cynical , they deserved losing their majority .

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

The banks are the same charging people 4.5 to 5.5 on SVR mortgage rates.Many unable to move due to a change in circumstances.No wonder people struggling are pissed off with been done over.

Since the mortgage market is extremely competitive, with lots of mortgage lenders, and since it is very easy for new entrants to come into the market an offer better deals, why do you think anyone is being 'done over'? Maybe they are not very good credit risks? Or maybe you've spotted a humdinger of a business opportunity which all those building societies, UK banks, foreign banks, and specialised lenders have somehow overlooked.

I think that there is such an opportunity, if you think that you are very likely to repay the full debt plus interest before the cut off date. Sitting on equity in your house when you could borrow against it at a lower rate and pay off the education loan must make sense in those circumstances.

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

The banks are the same charging people 4.5 to 5.5 on SVR mortgage rates.Many unable to move due to a change in circumstances.No wonder people struggling are pissed off with been done over.

Since the mortgage market is extremely competitive, with lots of mortgage lenders, and since it is very easy for new entrants to come into the market an offer better deals, why do you think anyone is being 'done over'? Maybe they are not very good credit risks? Or maybe you've spotted a humdinger of a business opportunity which all those building societies, UK banks, foreign banks, and specialised lenders have somehow overlooked.

I assume lenders can't ask if your wife/partner is pregnant ?
Best to fix the 5 year deal before the baby arrives

The reporting (by the BBC at least) of the survey about concerns businesses have that a woman they employ might be pregnant or about to be was a prime example of slanted media coverage. It was all indignation about 'antiquated attitudes', without even the faintest whiff of an understanding of the hit on a small company to find that a new employee immediately takes maternity leave. It has b-all to do with antiquated attitudes, it's about the disruption and getting landed with the bill.

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

Sandpit said:

LOL at Dan Hodges getting in a Twitter spat with Morus of this parish...
https://order-order.com/2018/02/19/hodges-v-hendopolis/

I think Hodges has a point. They showed the front page on the Marr show.

The BBC showed the front page on the Marr show; is the headline tweeter the BBC (even if Guido conflates them)?

No, he is doing it in a personal capacity.

I'd say that's an interesting question. It's a longstanding activity undertaken by BBC employees as a group who gain much of their cachet from their status as BBC employees and who mention that status in their Twitter bios. The BBC will have been well aware of this for some time and presumably has acquiesced in them carrying it out. You might try to argue that their Twitter presence is part of the BBC's devolved social media strategy and not a solely personal activity. The BBC gets some benefits from its employees being very visible on Twitter.

Let's say Mr Henderson had Tweeted the MoS front page and Mr Cox had sued him for libel. I would suggest going after the BBC too, not least because they have deep pockets.

Henderson's feed clearly states he works for the BBC. He could easily have a second, anonymous account, if he wanted to differentiate between his own actions and those on behalf of his employer.

Exactly my point. And indeed, I suspect the BBC want him to name them in his bio.

I'm encouraged by my work to tweet as part of my firm's social media strategy (not one of my favourite activities, as it happens). I'd be dumbfounded if the same were not true within the BBC, given the number of BBC employees at all levels who are enthusiastic tweeters.

Presumably your company, a law firm, have said officially that they’ll defend you for Twitter libel? Mr Henderson’s comments suggest that he’s on his own if he gets sued.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great Ormond Street Hospital may reverse decision to return £530k of donations received from the Presidents Club.

Sky journo thinks it is likely they will retain the money.

Some sense at last.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

The banks are the same charging people 4.5 to 5.5 on SVR mortgage rates.Many unable to move due to a change in circumstances.No wonder people struggling are pissed off with been done over.

Since the mortgage market is extremely competitive, with lots of mortgage lenders, and since it is very easy for new entrants to come into the market an offer better deals, why do you think anyone is being 'done over'? Maybe they are not very good credit risks? Or maybe you've spotted a humdinger of a business opportunity which all those building societies, UK banks, foreign banks, and specialised lenders have somehow overlooked.

Because due to circumstances many people are are unable to move from the SVR .Loss of income, sickness , caring responsibilities to name but a few.The base rate is now 0.5 , the SVR on many occasions 4.5 to 5 5 or more..I think you know this but are uninterested in people not been able to access cheaper deals .So get ripped off.

Who is getting 'ripped off'? They can't access cheaper deals for objective reasons. As I pointed out, it's an extremely competitive market, and if they were getting 'ripped off', someone else could come in and rip them off slightly less, thus making big profits. They don't - which shows that the 'ripping off' doesn't exist.

Anyone stuck on the SVR , they are paying to much over the base rate.

TheScreamingEagles said:

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the CU..... But they're not. So it's the Lib Dems, assuming there are any left, again.....for all the good that will do.

Mr. Nabavi, yeah, I read that article with the same thoughts. It never occurred to them to wonder why huge maternity rights might be concerning for businesses, particularly small ones. If questions aren't asked, they'll be wondered, and firms will opt for men over women if they have concerns over maternity leave.

Which doesn't help women at all.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great Ormond Street Hospital may reverse decision to return £530k of donations received from the Presidents Club.

Sky journo thinks it is likely they will retain the money.

Common sense finally reigns? Silly of a children’s hospital to give back half a million quid they desperately need.

Yorkcity said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

The banks are the same charging people 4.5 to 5.5 on SVR mortgage rates.Many unable to move due to a change in circumstances.No wonder people struggling are pissed off with been done over.

Since the mortgage market is extremely competitive, with lots of mortgage lenders, and since it is very easy for new entrants to come into the market an offer better deals, why do you think anyone is being 'done over'? Maybe they are not very good credit risks? Or maybe you've spotted a humdinger of a business opportunity which all those building societies, UK banks, foreign banks, and specialised lenders have somehow overlooked.

Because due to circumstances many people are are unable to move from the SVR .Loss of income, sickness , caring responsibilities to name but a few.The base rate is now 0.5 , the SVR on many occasions 4.5 to 5 5 or more..I think you know this but are uninterested in people not been able to access cheaper deals .So get ripped off.

Who is getting 'ripped off'? They can't access cheaper deals for objective reasons. As I pointed out, it's an extremely competitive market, and if they were getting 'ripped off', someone else could come in and rip them off slightly less, thus making big profits. They don't - which shows that the 'ripping off' doesn't exist.

Anyone stuck on the SVR , they are paying to much over the base rate.

Too much according to what criterion?

TheScreamingEagles said:

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

They could also vote in the 2014 local elections too but given Labour won those elections by 2% and the London elections by 11% anyway so is already starting from a high base and UKIP got 17% a substantial part of which should go to the Tories in May, I do not expect May will get a 'Brexit battering'

williamglenn said:

ttps://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/965550175212236803

Evening Standard front page attacking PM. Who’d have thought?

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

ttps://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/965550175212236803

Evening Standard front page attacking PM. Who’d have thought?

Technically it is the former de facto Deputy PM & close friend of Mrs May and a former Brexit Minister attacking the government

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

ttps://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/965550175212236803

Evening Standard front page attacking PM. Who’d have thought?

To be fair, Damian Green's comments are definitely news. They seem to be aimed more at Boris et al than Theresa May, though.

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Another thing on libel. During the hours after the Westminster Bridge attack, posts naming the perpetrator were deleted because they didn't come from a reputable source. Yet, it was okay for the wrong name to be posted because it had been incorrectly named by Channel 4 news.

I'd have thought Mr Cox could sue the MoS, and if he wins, ask people on Twitter to delete Tweets showing the front page.

That's the Reynolds Defence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v_Times_Newspapers_Ltd

The funny thing is, in a way, Henderson has not done himself any favours for any future legal proceedings. Let's say he Tweets a front page with a claim which turns out to be libelous. The aggrieved party could point out that Henderson had previously taken steps to not libel someone else and so should have taken more care in other cases.

I suspect he will set up an official BBC twitter account for tomorrow's front pages.

I sympathise with him a lot, Mike will attest, getting letters from solicitors threatening you with ruin is not a pleasant experience, especially when you've not done anything wrong.

One eminent barrister told us to successfully defend a theoretical action might cost 100k.

Fortunately we've not gotten to that stage on PB.

A few posters crossed the line during phone hacking so like other larger news PB shut down all discussions on it.

Libel is one of the things the land of the free does quite well. Tweeting or printing the truth isn't libellous. As Private Eye (Maxwell) or the Sunday Times (Armstrong) can tell you, in the UK printing the truth can be libellous, which is absurd.

US courts now refuse to accept UK libel verdicts.

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the CU..... But they're not. So it's the Lib Dems, assuming there are any left, again.....for all the good that will do.

It will do a lot of good in Richmond and Twickenham where LibDems hope to give the Tories a "Brexit battering". Every EU national in the borough will be reminded that they can vote in the locals and give the Tories a "Brexit battering". I love that phrase.

And the LibDem's democracy deficit? Ignoring the will of the voters stuffed them royally in the SW last year.

stevef said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the CU..... But they're not. So it's the Lib Dems, assuming there are any left, again.....for all the good that will do.

Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners

Staying in the Single Market but outside the EU political institutions respects the EURef and minimises the economic damage. It's the least worst option (except for actually staying in the EU).

Time is certainly running out for the Brexit negotiations. Punters on Betfair are betting on a 60% probability that the UK will NOT exit the EU on 29 March 2019.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

They could also vote in the 2014 local elections too but given Labour won those elections by 2% and the London elections by 11% anyway so is already starting from a high base and UKIP got 17% a substantial part of which should go to the Tories in May, I do not expect May will get a 'Brexit battering'

hang on.... didn't we have a GE top "bash her"??

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great Ormond Street Hospital may reverse decision to return £530k of donations received from the Presidents Club.

Sky journo thinks it is likely they will retain the money.

Common sense finally reigns? Silly of a children’s hospital to give back half a million quid they desperately need.

They've probably got legal advice telling them they can't return it.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Owls, a transaction tax is drunken madness.

Like stamp duty, which is a transaction tax?

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

On student loans, plan II is shown as being repaid at a threshold of £21,000.

http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk/portal/page?_pageid=93,6678784&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

I thought this was now £25,000 ? Is the website wrong ?

iirc it is going but has not yet gone up

Lol - sneaky

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2017/10/victory-for-graduates-student-loan-repayment-threshold

MarqueeMark said:

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the CU..... But they're not. So it's the Lib Dems, assuming there are any left, again.....for all the good that will do.

It will do a lot of good in Richmond and Twickenham where LibDems hope to give the Tories a "Brexit battering". Every EU national in the borough will be reminded that they can vote in the locals and give the Tories a "Brexit battering". I love that phrase.

And the LibDem's democracy deficit? Ignoring the will of the voters stuffed them royally in the SW last year.

LDs won back a few seats from the Tories in posh upper class Remainerville at the general election eg Twickenham, Kingston upon Thames, Bath and Oxford West and Abingdon. Elsewhere though the Tories tenses to increase their majorities in seats they won from the LDs in 2015, especially in Leave voting seats in the Southwest

TheWhiteRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

They could also vote in the 2014 local elections too but given Labour won those elections by 2% and the London elections by 11% anyway so is already starting from a high base and UKIP got 17% a substantial part of which should go to the Tories in May, I do not expect May will get a 'Brexit battering'

hang on.... didn't we have a GE top "bash her"??

Yes and she still got 42% of the vote and enough seats to form a government with the DUP

A media law expert opines

https://twitter.com/DBanksy/status/965362896959098880

AndyJS said:

rural_voter said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

David_Evershed said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile. in Germany: https://twitter.com/afneil/status/965499042510843904

The new SPD leader, I think, has backed the coalition deal. We find out the result on 4 March, which I think is also the date of the Italian election.

This polling with AfD on 25% and SPD on 14% will have a real impact on the way SPD members see the value of a coalition with Merkel/CDU. CDU are only on 26% themselves.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.

Bleak. Very bleak.

The new (permanent) SPD leader was the flagbearer of the deal - a good communicator and a more authentic voice than Schulz - before she became leader.

I don't think focussing on East Germany - where the SPD lose votes to Die Linke (The Left which for those not familiar is exactly what it sounds like)- is that helpful.

The question for the CDU is "we'll back the deal, but is Merkel the right leader" and the question for the SPD is "do we want a disaster of an election now or in five years".

I don't follow why Die Linke is persona non grata. The online descriptions make them sound like a democratic Socialist party of Jeremy Corbyn, Seamus Milne, Jon Lansman and Dennis Skinner. They're not considered a threat to order and stability as a Communist party would be or as a racist hard-right party would be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Office_for_the_Protection_of_the_Constitution

Probably something to do with their connections to the communists in East Germany.

Quite. I thought that they were a bit, shall we say, unrepentant.

Yorkcity said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

The banks are the same charging people 4.5 to 5.5 on SVR mortgage rates.Many unable to move due to a change in circumstances.No wonder people struggling are pissed off with been done over.

Since the mortgage market is extremely competitive, with lots of mortgage lenders, and since it is very easy for new entrants to come into the market an offer better deals, why do you think anyone is being 'done over'? Maybe they are not very good credit risks? Or maybe you've spotted a humdinger of a business opportunity which all those building societies, UK banks, foreign banks, and specialised lenders have somehow overlooked.

Because due to circumstances many people are are unable to move from the SVR .Loss of income, sickness , caring responsibilities to name but a few.The base rate is now 0.5 , the SVR on many occasions 4.5 to 5 5 or more..I think you know this but are uninterested in people not been able to access cheaper deals .So get ripped off.

Who is getting 'ripped off'? They can't access cheaper deals for objective reasons. As I pointed out, it's an extremely competitive market, and if they were getting 'ripped off', someone else could come in and rip them off slightly less, thus making big profits. They don't - which shows that the 'ripping off' doesn't exist.

Anyone stuck on the SVR , they are paying to much over the base rate.

Too much according to what criterion?

The differential between the base rate and the SVR is to much.You might not agree.However these people are been unfairly treated because they can not change due to circumstances . A fair system a regulator would step in .You might not care , I do.https://www.cml.org.uk/news/news-and-views/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-mortgage-rates/

You ignore my point, and instead attack me saying I 'don't care'. Whether I care or not is irrelevant to the point I'm making, and which you keep ignoring, which is that haven't explained why the differential is 'too much', nor answered my point that if it was too much, other lenders would step in and try to grab some of this juicy business. The obvious conclusion, which you seem incapable of understanding because you are so sure that business is some kind of evil conspiracy, is that the business into as juicy as you assume.

TheScreamingEagles said:

A media law expert opines

https://twitter.com/DBanksy/status/965362896959098880

He sees Henderson as the BBC.

So to go back to my original point, Marr showed the front page. @Sandpit might be right that the BBC lawyer's worked through the night to say that it was okay to show it on the Marr show.

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

stevef said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the CU..... But they're not. So it's the Lib Dems, assuming there are any left, again.....for all the good that will do.

Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners

Staying in the Single Market but outside the EU political institutions respects the EURef and minimises the economic damage. It's the least worst option (except for actually staying in the EU).

Time is certainly running out for the Brexit negotiations. Punters on Betfair are betting on a 60% probability that the UK will NOT exit the EU on 29 March 2019.

No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote

As you know, Leavers had a variety of reasons for voting Leave. The only explicit reason was to leave the EU. Don't put words into their mouths.

Along with the principle that decisions affecting the UK should be made in the UK (which staying in the single market would not fully respect anyway given it requires ECJ jurisdiction) regaining control over immigration and the UK border was one of the top 2 reasons for voting Leave

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

The banks are the same charging people 4.5 to 5.5 on SVR mortgage rates.Many unable to move due to a change in circumstances.No wonder people struggling are pissed off with been done over.

Since the mortgage market is extremely competitive, with lots of mortgage lenders, and since it is very easy for new entrants to come into the market an offer better deals, why do you think anyone is being 'done over'? Maybe they are not very good credit risks? Or maybe you've spotted a humdinger of a business opportunity which all those building societies, UK banks, foreign banks, and specialised lenders have somehow overlooked.

Because due to circumstances many people are are unable to move from the SVR .Loss of income, sickness , caring responsibilities to name but a few.The base rate is now 0.5 , the SVR on many occasions 4.5 to 5 5 or more..I think you know this but are uninterested in people not been able to access cheaper deals .So get ripped off.

Who is getting 'ripped off'? They can't access cheaper deals for objective reasons. As I pointed out, it's an extremely competitive market, and if they were getting 'ripped off', someone else could come in and rip them off slightly less, thus making big profits. They don't - which shows that the 'ripping off' doesn't exist.

Anyone stuck on the SVR , they are paying to much over the base rate.

Too much according to what criterion?

The differential between the base rate and the SVR is to much.You might not agree.However these people are been unfairly treated because they can not change due to circumstances . A fair system a regulator would step in .You might not care , I do.https://www.cml.org.uk/news/news-and-views/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-mortgage-rates/

You ignore my point, and instead attack me saying I 'don't care'. Whether I care or not is irrelevant to the point I'm making, and which you keep ignoring, which is that haven't explained why the differential is 'too much', nor answered my point that if it was too much, other lenders would step in and try to grab some of this juicy business. The obvious conclusion, which you seem incapable of understanding because you are so sure that business is some kind of evil conspiracy, is that the business into as juicy as you assume.

Give over , they are stuck on the SVR , and are been taken advantage off .They do not look to move as there is no one to move to. Lenders are not stepping in because they all hold people stuck on the SVR .

Barnesian said:

MarqueeMark said:

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the CU..... But they're not. So it's the Lib Dems, assuming there are any left, again.....for all the good that will do.

It will do a lot of good in Richmond and Twickenham where LibDems hope to give the Tories a "Brexit battering". Every EU national in the borough will be reminded that they can vote in the locals and give the Tories a "Brexit battering". I love that phrase.

And the LibDem's democracy deficit? Ignoring the will of the voters stuffed them royally in the SW last year.

... when EU nationals living here, working on essential services and paying taxes were not allowed the vote on something of critical importance to them. That was the democracy deficit and why the EURef was undemocratic. Well - EU nationals can vote in the locals and they will. They will.

If votes on constitutional questions affecting the future of the country and its relations with foreign powers are to be given to citizens of those very foreign powers, there's not much point to British citizenship as a differentiator in that case is there? That has to be the reddest line of the lot.

Barnesian said:

MarqueeMark said:

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.

Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.

Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.

A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-urges-londons-eu-citizens-to-punish-theresa-may-for-brexit-chaos-in-spring-elections-a3769901.html

If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the CU..... But they're not. So it's the Lib Dems, assuming there are any left, again.....for all the good that will do.

It will do a lot of good in Richmond and Twickenham where LibDems hope to give the Tories a "Brexit battering". Every EU national in the borough will be reminded that they can vote in the locals and give the Tories a "Brexit battering". I love that phrase.

And the LibDem's democracy deficit? Ignoring the will of the voters stuffed them royally in the SW last year.

... when EU nationals living here, working on essential services and paying taxes were not allowed the vote on something of critical importance to them. That was the democracy deficit and why the EURef was undemocratic. Well - EU nationals can vote in the locals and they will. They will.

Hmm. Lab wins Barnet etc on the EU vote. I can see the Daily Heil headlines now!

Yorkcity said:

Give over , they are stuck on the SVR , and are been taken advantage off .They do not look to move as there is no one to move to. Lenders are not stepping in because they all hold people stuck on the SVR .

Yeah, it's all an evil conspiracy, and other businesses, building societies, and foreign banks are selflessly refusing to step in so that their rivals can continue to skim off vast profits.

bigjohnowls said:

Sainsburys empty.

A business in crisis.

Every price rounded up to end in a 5 or 0.

Lidl by contrast full of biddies

Sainsbury's is doing its best to drive me away by slowly dropping the things I want to buy each week. It is as if management has heard about but not thought about the 80/20 rule and don't realise it is not the same 20 for each shopper. As they tend towards a small core range they will have to compete solely on price which will not end well for them. And don't get me started on the hunt round the car park for trolleys.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yorkcity said:

Give over , they are stuck on the SVR , and are been taken advantage off .They do not look to move as there is no one to move to. Lenders are not stepping in because they all hold people stuck on the SVR .

Yeah, it's all an evil conspiracy, and other businesses, building societies, and foreign banks are selflessly refusing to step in so that their rivals can skim off vast profits.

You obviously think paying 5% over the base rate for those on stuck on the SVR is fair.We will leave it at that.

Time is running out for remoaners.

To be blunt, (on topic) they disingenuously seek to base their case on their amazing claim that seventeen and a half million people went to the polls in 2016 and voted to leave the EU but were perfectly happy for the EU to continue to control UK laws and borders via the Single Market.

That would be like saying that people voted for a political party at a general election without agreeing with any of its manifesto.

Leavers made perfectly clear throughout the referendum campaign that to vote Leave would be to "take back control" of UK borders and laws. The official Remain booklet sent to all homes said that a vote for Leave meant leaving the Single Market.

The idea then that in 2016 voters chose only to leave the club but wanted the club to continue to impose all its rules and regulations is ridiculous and disingenuous. People voted to end the EU's control over our borders and laws. Period.

I had to smile when a prominent Leaver, Bernard Jenkin, whom I disagree with on most things, pointed out that for decades the current leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, went into the NO lobbies and voted against every EU treaty, including that which established the Single Market.

There would be no Brexit if it were not for Jeremy Corbyn failing to campaign for Remain effectively.

I wonder whether this ridiculous old Marxist is going to put himself in the ludicrous position in 2022 of campaigning for a Single Market that he voted against creating in the first place.

No wonder Corbynistas want to silence all discussion of him.