politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Prof John Curtice suggests that LAB is not going to have an ea
Comments
-
I am a doctor ........Beverley_C said:
Is it a white one?David_Evershed said:Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/991261825969917952
Maybe all the part time lady doctors could work full time?
I'll get my coat.
of engineering.
Want any treatment from me?
0 -
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.FrancisUrquhart said:The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/bbc-put-presenters-elegant-form-zero-hours-pay-court-hears/
With this and Cliff case, thebbctaxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.0 -
I thought they were retiring younger than that, having maxed out their tax free pension pots.SandyRentool said:
Or the gentlemen doctors who retire at 58 could put a few more shifts in?David_Evershed said:Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
Maybe all the part time lady doctors could work full time?
I'll get my coat.0 -
https://news.sky.com/story/300-women-quit-labour-to-protest-all-women-shortlist-update-11354746
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
0 -
I am guessing they hoped they could get away with it in the same way many IT consultants did for a long time by primarily working at one place, but spending x days a year doing other freelance projects. Lots of tv presenters do after-dinner circuit etc.Sandpit said:
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.FrancisUrquhart said:The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/bbc-put-presenters-elegant-form-zero-hours-pay-court-hears/
With this and Cliff case, thebbctaxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.0 -
it appears the ladies are still getting there firstMattW said:
I thought they were retiring younger than that, having maxed out their tax free pension pots.SandyRentool said:
Or the gentlemen doctors who retire at 58 could put a few more shifts in?David_Evershed said:Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
Maybe all the part time lady doctors could work full time?
I'll get my coat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html0 -
Indeed but there is little reason to believe that Gaitskell would not have performed at least as well as Wilson in 1964 - quite a few commentators have suggested he would have delivered a bigger Labour majority. The 1992 election would also have been very different had Thatcher still been PM. As it was, Kinnock could have managed a 2017 type result but threw away that prospect by losing control of himself at Sheffield.HYUFD said:
Kinnock of course lost both the 1987 and 1992 general elections and it was Wilson not Gaitskill who won in 1964justin124 said:
They are performing better than Labour managed under Gaitskell in 1960/1961 - and indeed than under Kinnock in 1984/85 & 1988!rottenborough said:Morning all,
I decent result in London will allow Labour to avoid looking at the truth I suspect. That is that out in the marginals outside London, they are not doing anywhere near as well as an Opposition approaching mid-term should be.0 -
The proposals in the Conservative manifesto made life easier for long term dementia sufferers, and a larger inheritance for their families compared to the current situation.David_Evershed said:
Dementia tax already exists.HYUFD said:
Council tax, National Insurance and Income tax will be the source for extra social care and NHS funds.Pulpstar said:
Yes but politically the inevitable council tax rise is akin to boiling a frog (Also people think it'll go up no matter who is in) whereas the 'dementia tax' was shiny and new . People definitely didn't want to touch it for the very first time.David_Evershed said:Pulpstar said:
Did the dementia tax come up on every other doorstep ?david_herdson said:
Yes. But as you say, while I cast a little doubt on my Wednesday thoughts, I didn't repudiate them.nunuone said:
But didn't you make another post on Thursday saying maybe you had an over reaction and that your nerves had calm down?david_herdson said:
.GIN1138 said:
For all the Tories woes regarding Brexit, windrush there isn't anything like that policy floating about at the moment.
The biggest issue for Tier 1 councils is that adult and child social care is absorbing 60% of their expenditure and increasing towards 80%.
However, the solution is not in the hands of councils but central government.
The general election result killed off the idea of a 'dementia tax' for good
Unless you have assets worth less than £23,250, you pay for your own residential and nursing care apart from a small allowance.
A fantastic example to the next generation of allowing a policy to be defined by your political opponents, and failing to put enough of your own people up to defend it.0 -
Perhaps its only similarity with Windrush is that something most people would think is black or white turns out to have many shades of grey. Here it is the uncertainty about whether these people who worked for the BBC were actually employed by the corporation. It is a shame parliament has no revising chamber that could catch laws badly drafted by civil servants who went to all the right schools.FrancisUrquhart said:The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/bbc-put-presenters-elegant-form-zero-hours-pay-court-hears/
With this and Cliff case, thebbctaxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.0 -
Really boils my piss as a PAYE to see employers dodging Er NI in this wayFrancisUrquhart said:
I am guessing they hoped they could get away with it in the same way many IT consultants did for a long time by primarily working at one place, but spending x days a year doing other freelance projects. Lots of tv presenters do after-dinner circuit etc.Sandpit said:
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.FrancisUrquhart said:The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/bbc-put-presenters-elegant-form-zero-hours-pay-court-hears/
With this and Cliff case, thebbctaxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.0 -
That all makes sense, Roger, but what I can't get my head round is that you blame the Conservatives for this. Do you not know that these rules and penalties were introduced by the last Labour government? The selectivity of your indignation is a wonder to behold.Roger said:OT. cyclefree. Thanks for your interesting comment on my cafe owner friend. You're more compassionate than the average PBer. Out of interest one piece of information that I didn't know when I wrote that letter is that he had produced a work permit but it was a fake. One readily available on the internet apparently and whether because it was convincing or he was too inexperienced to know the difference I don't know but £15,000 is a big price to pay for a very honest mistake.
0 -
And it annoys me more to see the employees contracors portrayed as victims.Pulpstar said:
Really boils my piss as a PAYE to see employers dodging Er NI in this wayFrancisUrquhart said:
I am guessing they hoped they could get away with it in the same way many IT consultants did for a long time by primarily working at one place, but spending x days a year doing other freelance projects. Lots of tv presenters do after-dinner circuit etc.Sandpit said:
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.FrancisUrquhart said:The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/bbc-put-presenters-elegant-form-zero-hours-pay-court-hears/
With this and Cliff case, thebbctaxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.0 -
Here in the US the state Departments of Motor Vehicles issue non-driving photo IDs to those that can’t or don’t want to drive.malcolmg said:
Richard, You can get a provisional whether you drive or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
To get a driving licence you have to be have passed the test to be able drive. That is extremely expensive. Plus what do you do if people lose their licence because of offences?malcolmg said:FPT
malcolmg said:
» show previous quotes
Why not just make it a driving licence, you can get one regardless of whether you drive a car.
Because they're quite expensive.
ydoethur, surely £20 is not expensive0 -
Hill of beans, nunu!nunuone said:
None of it amounts to a row of beans it seems......rottenborough said:More trouble for May...
ht//twitter.com/britainelects/status/991277540084998144
another increasing Tory lead....what if this is more like 2015 where the tories end up with a 7% lead?0 -
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.0 -
Yup! I’m an IT consultant, as was my father. It’s generally either a six month contract or employment now, which is wreaking havoc when UK maternity leave contracts are often for nine months. The end result is going to be a small number of large firms taking over most IT contracts, at the expense of those who currently earn good day rates as interims.FrancisUrquhart said:
I am guessing they hoped they could get away with it in the same way many IT consultants did for a long time by primarily working at one place, but spending x days a year doing other freelance projects. Lots of tv presenters do after-dinner circuit etc.Sandpit said:
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.FrancisUrquhart said:The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/bbc-put-presenters-elegant-form-zero-hours-pay-court-hears/
With this and Cliff case, thebbctaxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.0 -
Deportation phone-in on R4 ... including two 12 year old children threatened with being put back on the plane to the US leaving the parents here.
What a shitty country this has become.0 -
"The Brits partitioned my country too, you know!"williamglenn said:Not all Lords are anti-Brexit.
https://twitter.com/KilclooneyJohn/status/990954166741856256
0 -
Why would anyone canvass when they can put a poster up and virtue signal on twitter ?rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/991270966943797248Slackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Most of them wont even vote - telling people you voted is far more important.
0 -
Under socialism there will be no hills of beans - only rows. Well actually a single bean - divided into 100 equal parts. With the dear leader getting 50 of those parts.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Hill of beans, nunu!nunuone said:
None of it amounts to a row of beans it seems......rottenborough said:More trouble for May...
ht//twitter.com/britainelects/status/991277540084998144
another increasing Tory lead....what if this is more like 2015 where the tories end up with a 7% lead?
See Venezuela for details.
0 -
on the topic of hysterical, Owen, I think we need to have a wee chat.TGOHF said:
Why would anyone canvass when they can put a poster up and virtue signal on twitter ?rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/991270966943797248Slackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Most of them wont even vote - telling people you voted is far more important.0 -
It starts well enough but meanders into a rant about general practice. One odd thing though is the figures for specialities show women favour anaethesia over surgery -- but can this be due to antisocial hours? Am I missing something here? Don't anaesthetists and surgeons operate together or do anaesthetists change shifts halfway through long operations? If the hours are the same then there must be some other explanation.Alanbrooke said:
it appears the ladies are still getting there firstMattW said:
I thought they were retiring younger than that, having maxed out their tax free pension pots.SandyRentool said:
Or the gentlemen doctors who retire at 58 could put a few more shifts in?David_Evershed said:Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
Maybe all the part time lady doctors could work full time?
I'll get my coat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html0 -
I agree. Xenophobia is rife.rural_voter said:Deportation phone-in on R4 ... including two 12 year old children threatened with being put back on the plane to the US leaving the parents here.
What a shitty country this has become.0 -
Did anyone phone in to complain that the parents weren't being deported too?rural_voter said:Deportation phone-in on R4 ... including two 12 year old children threatened with being put back on the plane to the US leaving the parents here.
What a shitty country this has become.0 -
Yes, but the idea that Jeremy “F*** the banks” Corbyn and John “IRA” McDonnell are going to go anything that might help that generation are preposterous.Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
If I had an 18 year old kid now, I’d suggest that they either go to a Redbrick/Ivyleague uni or start an apprenticeship in law / finance / IT at 18. Spending three years getting £50k in debt for minimal career advancement is pointless financially, even if it’s great fun at the time.0 -
Layla Moran very good on the Daily Politics today, I thought.
Worth watching for the last 10 minutes in which they dissect a bunch of trademark Lib Dem bar charts.0 -
No ideaDecrepitJohnL said:
It starts well enough but meanders into a rant about general practice. One odd thing though is the figures for specialities show women favour anaethesia over surgery -- but can this be due to antisocial hours? Am I missing something here? Don't anaesthetists and surgeons operate together or do anaesthetists change shifts halfway through long operations? If the hours are the same then there must be some other explanation.Alanbrooke said:
it appears the ladies are still getting there firstMattW said:
I thought they were retiring younger than that, having maxed out their tax free pension pots.SandyRentool said:
Or the gentlemen doctors who retire at 58 could put a few more shifts in?David_Evershed said:Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
Maybe all the part time lady doctors could work full time?
I'll get my coat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html
I just listen to my GP mate who is pissed off having to cover for the female half of his practice.
On the other hand if ladies head off to GP then the pay gap is going to be something massive since consultants get the big salaries0 -
-
It was pointed out at the time IR35 was trundling through Gordon's visions of enormous tax-takes that many actors should fall within IR35 and people got annoyed that that actors were exempted. No one could say how people - such as Coronation Street actors who had never played any other part for 20 or 30 years - were not employees.FrancisUrquhart said:
I am guessing they hoped they could get away with it in the same way many IT consultants did for a long time by primarily working at one place, but spending x days a year doing other freelance projects. Lots of tv presenters do after-dinner circuit etc.Sandpit said:
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.FrancisUrquhart said:The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/bbc-put-presenters-elegant-form-zero-hours-pay-court-hears/
With this and Cliff case, thebbctaxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.
But the politicians loved the reflected glory from actors and, of course, no senior politician had actors in the family
0 -
Those of us in favour of capitalism need to keep banging on about it.TGOHF said:
Under socialism there will be no hills of beans - only rows. Well actually a single bean - divided into 100 equal parts. With the dear leader getting 50 of those parts.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Hill of beans, nunu!nunuone said:
None of it amounts to a row of beans it seems......rottenborough said:More trouble for May...
ht//twitter.com/britainelects/status/991277540084998144
another increasing Tory lead....what if this is more like 2015 where the tories end up with a 7% lead?
See Venezuela for details.
https://twitter.com/AEI/status/9373801693750108160 -
I agree, but people don't judge oppositions as closely as governments. I'd argue Brexit is a similar example: When people want a change, they aren't desperately interested what the change is compared to how clear they are on what they dislike about the status quo.Sandpit said:
Yes, but the idea that Jeremy “F*** the banks” Corbyn and John “IRA” McDonnell are going to go anything that might help that generation are preposterous.Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
If I had an 18 year old kid now, I’d suggest that they either go to a Redbrick/Ivyleague uni or start an apprenticeship in law / finance / IT at 18. Spending three years getting £50k in debt for minimal career advancement is pointless financially, even if it’s great fun at the time.0 -
But but but...the Tories should be running round clearing up all Labour's messes, not just the economy they left us....Richard_Nabavi said:
That all makes sense, Roger, but what I can't get my head round is that you blame the Conservatives for this. Do you not know that these rules and penalties were introduced by the last Labour government? The selectivity of your indignation is a wonder to behold.Roger said:OT. cyclefree. Thanks for your interesting comment on my cafe owner friend. You're more compassionate than the average PBer. Out of interest one piece of information that I didn't know when I wrote that letter is that he had produced a work permit but it was a fake. One readily available on the internet apparently and whether because it was convincing or he was too inexperienced to know the difference I don't know but £15,000 is a big price to pay for a very honest mistake.
0 -
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.0 -
Vanilla really is terrible. This message somehow took a whole year to come through!TGOHF said:
Why would anyone canvass when they can put a poster up and virtue signal on twitter ?rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/991270966943797248Slackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Most of them wont even vote - telling people you voted is far more important.0 -
As I predicted the other day, media will be the main target if/when Corbyn fails to win a GE.
Here's a warm-up:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/9912836906543554570 -
There are plenty of people on six figure salaries in London who certainly cannot afford to buy their children flats and to whom the Conservative Brexit plans are a real and present threat to their financial security.HYUFD said:
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.0 -
Only about 25% will ever need residential care, the dementia tax was threatening to take your house after your death to pay for personal at home careDavid_Evershed said:
Dementia tax already exists.HYUFD said:
Council tax, National Insurance and Income tax will be the source for extra social care and NHS funds.Pulpstar said:
Yes but politically the inevitable council tax rise is akin to boiling a frog (Also people think it'll go up no matter who is in) whereas the 'dementia tax' was shiny and new . People definitely didn't want to touch it for the very first time.David_Evershed said:Pulpstar said:
Did the dementia tax come up on every other doorstep ?david_herdson said:
Yes. But as you say, while I cast a little doubt on my Wednesday thoughts, I didn't repudiate them.nunuone said:
But didn't you make another post on Thursday saying maybe you had an over reaction and that your nerves had calm down?david_herdson said:
For accuracy, it was the Wednesday, and it was based on the reactions to delivering knock-up letters - but yes, I remember TSE contacting me (message, I think, not phone call?), to check whether I had posted the comment or not. I hadn't seen the reaction it caused as i just made a couple of quick posts then settled to to eat and then put the kid to bed.GIN1138 said:
I remember you coming on to PB three nights before the 2017 general election and saying your canvassing had shown it was all going down the pan for Theresa and Con!david_herdson said:Kind of on-topicish.
).
Everyone thought your account had been hacked!
But that was a first-hand experience; this isn't quite. However, I still feel reasonably confident. My biggest concern is piling up a load of good seconds - though that of itself would be progress. I still can't see us not doing better here this year than in 2014.
For all the Tories woes regarding Brexit, windrush there isn't anything like that policy floating about at the moment.
The biggest issue for Tier 1 councils is that adult and child social care is absorbing 60% of their expenditure and increasing towards 80%.
However, the solution is not in the hands of councils but central government.
The general election result killed off the idea of a 'dementia tax' for good
Unless you have assets worth less than £23,250, you pay for your own residential and nursing care apart from a small allowance.0 -
Though Gaitskill lost in 1959justin124 said:
Indeed but there is little reason to believe that Gaitskell would not have performed at least as well as Wilson in 1964 - quite a few commentators have suggested he would have delivered a bigger Labour majority. The 1992 election would also have been very different had Thatcher still been PM. As it was, Kinnock could have managed a 2017 type result but threw away that prospect by losing control of himself at Sheffield.HYUFD said:
Kinnock of course lost both the 1987 and 1992 general elections and it was Wilson not Gaitskill who won in 1964justin124 said:
They are performing better than Labour managed under Gaitskell in 1960/1961 - and indeed than under Kinnock in 1984/85 & 1988!rottenborough said:Morning all,
I decent result in London will allow Labour to avoid looking at the truth I suspect. That is that out in the marginals outside London, they are not doing anywhere near as well as an Opposition approaching mid-term should be.0 -
Its "a conspiracy" claims Tory MP about Lords and Brexit on R4.0
-
Not true!Alanbrooke said:
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1DecrepitJohnL said:
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.0 -
since you tell us London doesn't vote tory why should they care ?williamglenn said:
There are plenty of people on six figure salaries in London who certainly cannot afford to buy their children flats and to whom the Conservative Brexit plans are a real and present threat to their financial security.HYUFD said:
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
0 -
Rubbish, they can certainly buy them a flat in London with that much income and assets even if not Kensington and Chelsea.williamglenn said:
There are plenty of people on six figure salaries in London who certainly cannot afford to buy their children flats and to whom the Conservative Brexit plans are a real and present threat to their financial security.HYUFD said:
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Brexit is an issue for general not local elections0 -
Idle Labour non-volunteers in the firing line....rottenborough said:As I predicted the other day, media will be the main target if/when Corbyn fails to win a GE.
Here's a warm-up:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/9912836906543554570 -
won't the academic bar be set so as to help achieve that result?Foxy said:
Not true!Alanbrooke said:
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1DecrepitJohnL said:
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.0 -
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.TGOHF said:https://news.sky.com/story/300-women-quit-labour-to-protest-all-women-shortlist-update-11354746
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.0 -
People in K&C didn't have their first house bought for them by their parents, and many perceive having to do so for their children if they want to get on the property ladder a major issue they aren't desperately happy with.HYUFD said:
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/17/average-house-price-times-annual-salary-official-figures-ons0 -
Our local GP practice is of three part-time female doctors. Roughtly equivalent, on surgery hour worked to 2 FTE’s. Communication skills are streets ahead of both of the two they replaced, one male, one female.Alanbrooke said:
No ideaDecrepitJohnL said:
It starts well enough but meanders into a rant about general practice. One odd thing though is the figures for specialities show women favour anaethesia over surgery -- but can this be due to antisocial hours? Am I missing something here? Don't anaesthetists and surgeons operate together or do anaesthetists change shifts halfway through long operations? If the hours are the same then there must be some other explanation.Alanbrooke said:
it appears the ladies are still getting there firstMattW said:
I thought they were retiring younger than that, having maxed out their tax free pension pots.SandyRentool said:
Or the gentlemen doctors who retire at 58 could put a few more shifts in?David_Evershed said:Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
Maybe all the part time lady doctors could work full time?
I'll get my coat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html
I just listen to my GP mate who is pissed off having to cover for the female half of his practice.
On the other hand if ladies head off to GP then the pay gap is going to be something massive since consultants get the big salaries0 -
Any grad applying will have several offers open at once and on that basis medicine is the most oversubscribed uni course except for maybe dentistry and vets. Whn young Brooke was considering medicine every uni I went to bored me with stats on oversubscription.Foxy said:
Not true!Alanbrooke said:
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1DecrepitJohnL said:
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
it's also fairly self policing since only people with a chance of getting the higher grades in technical subjects are likely to apply
so it's still fairly clear that there are more than enough people capable of being doctors and we haven't been recruiting enough of them, especially blokes.
0 -
NickPalmer said:
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.TGOHF said:https://news.sky.com/story/300-women-quit-labour-to-protest-all-women-shortlist-update-11354746
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?
0 -
What’s the problem in your opinion, insufficient numbers of qualified students, not enough UK med school places, too many women leaving the profession, immigrant restrictions or validations etc? Genuinely interested in your viewpoint.Foxy said:
Not true!Alanbrooke said:
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1DecrepitJohnL said:
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.0 -
To an extent, as AAA is pretty demanding. At Leicester we let in some with AAB, but must have A in A level chemistry.TheWhiteRabbit said:
won't the academic bar be set so as to help achieve that result?Foxy said:
Not true!Alanbrooke said:
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1DecrepitJohnL said:
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
There are some good access to Medicine foundation courses for those who have not got the grades.
Overall the problem is retention. Training is both expensive and prolonged, but in both Medicine and Nursing the atrition rates are scary.0 -
Why not move then?Quincel said:
People in K&C didn't have their first house bought for them by their parents, and many perceive having to do so for their children if they want to get on the property ladder a major issue they aren't desperately happy with.HYUFD said:
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/17/average-house-price-times-annual-salary-official-figures-ons
When unemployment in the Welsh valleys (and other places) was high and the jobs were elsewhere, people migrated to get a better life (ie employment). Not possible for all of course, but those that are in the best position as a group so to do are precisely the twenty somethings out of full time education. Why not move to an area of better affordability within the UK if a house is so important?0 -
How would Jack Dromey get selected?MarkHopkins said:NickPalmer said:
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.TGOHF said:https://news.sky.com/story/300-women-quit-labour-to-protest-all-women-shortlist-update-11354746
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?0 -
maybe, but an organisation claiming it cant get people has forked out for three people to do the work of two. Now there are all sorts of advantages in having three but maybe the we cant get people argument is just a bit weak.OldKingCole said:
Our local GP practice is of three part-time female doctors. Roughtly equivalent, on surgery hour worked to 2 FTE’s. Communication skills are streets ahead of both of the two they replaced, one male, one female.Alanbrooke said:
No ideaDecrepitJohnL said:
It starts well enough but meanders into a rant about general practice. One odd thing though is the figures for specialities show women favour anaethesia over surgery -- but can this be due to antisocial hours? Am I missing something here? Don't anaesthetists and surgeons operate together or do anaesthetists change shifts halfway through long operations? If the hours are the same then there must be some other explanation.Alanbrooke said:
it appears the ladies are still getting there firstMattW said:
I thought they were retiring younger than that, having maxed out their tax free pension pots.SandyRentool said:
Or the gentlemen doctors who retire at 58 could put a few more shifts in?David_Evershed said:Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
Maybe all the part time lady doctors could work full time?
I'll get my coat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html
I just listen to my GP mate who is pissed off having to cover for the female half of his practice.
On the other hand if ladies head off to GP then the pay gap is going to be something massive since consultants get the big salaries0 -
More likely a beneficial impact on the Conservatives. Why Labour thought it would be fruitful to bang on about an immigration issue for weeks before an election, rather than on the economic and austerity issues on which they actually do have public sympathy, I have no idea. It is even making me rethink my assessment of Diane Abbott as a political genius!Slackbladder said:
Windrush seems to have absolutely no impact.nunuone said:
None of it amounts to a row of beans it seems......rottenborough said:More trouble for May...
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/991277540084998144
another increasing Tory lead....what if this is more like 2015 where the tories end up with a 7% lead?0 -
The introduction of All Women Shortlists has been a disgrace since it first happened in the mid-1990s. I live in the key marginal of Norwich North - but will not vote for a gender vetted Labour candidate.NickPalmer said:
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.TGOHF said:https://news.sky.com/story/300-women-quit-labour-to-protest-all-women-shortlist-update-11354746
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.0 -
I am preparing a thread header, so keep watching!Sandpit said:
What’s the problem in your opinion, insufficient numbers of qualified students, not enough UK med school places, too many women leaving the profession, immigrant restrictions or validations etc? Genuinely interested in your viewpoint.Foxy said:
Not true!Alanbrooke said:
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1DecrepitJohnL said:
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.0 -
Why do people not like the idea of having to choose between home ownership and living near their family, friends, and where they grew up? A decision the last generation didn't have to make. Hmm...welshowl said:
Why not move then?Quincel said:
People in K&C didn't have their first house bought for them by their parents, and many perceive having to do so for their children if they want to get on the property ladder a major issue they aren't desperately happy with.HYUFD said:
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/17/average-house-price-times-annual-salary-official-figures-ons
When unemployment in the Welsh valleys (and other places) was high and the jobs were elsewhere, people migrated to get a better life (ie employment). Not possible for all of course, but those that are in the best position as a group so to do are precisely the twenty somethings out of full time education. Why not move to an area of better affordability within the UK if a house is so important?0 -
Cool, always good to see thread headers from people with a specialist subject. Looking forward to itFoxy said:
I am preparing a thread header, so keep watching!Sandpit said:
What’s the problem in your opinion, insufficient numbers of qualified students, not enough UK med school places, too many women leaving the profession, immigrant restrictions or validations etc? Genuinely interested in your viewpoint.Foxy said:
Not true!Alanbrooke said:
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1DecrepitJohnL said:
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
0 -
Every politician of every hue has of late (well, since the GFC) has been "f*** the banks". As for John "IRA" McDonnell, you are showing your age, dearie.Sandpit said:
Yes, but the idea that Jeremy “F*** the banks” Corbyn and John “IRA” McDonnell are going to go anything that might help that generation are preposterous.Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
If I had an 18 year old kid now, I’d suggest that they either go to a Redbrick/Ivyleague uni or start an apprenticeship in law / finance / IT at 18. Spending three years getting £50k in debt for minimal career advancement is pointless financially, even if it’s great fun at the time.0 -
-
A grade A at A level today is,however, a great deal easier than prior to the switch from Relative Marking to Absolute Marking which occurred at the end of the 1980s. Circa 25% of candidates manage an A grade nowadays - compared with just 10% under the former system.Foxy said:
To an extent, as AAA is pretty demanding. At Leicester we let in some with AAB, but must have A in A level chemistry.TheWhiteRabbit said:
won't the academic bar be set so as to help achieve that result?Foxy said:
Not true!Alanbrooke said:
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1DecrepitJohnL said:
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
There are some good access to Medicine foundation courses for those who have not got the grades.
Overall the problem is retention. Training is both expensive and prolonged, but in both Medicine and Nursing the atrition rates are scary.0 -
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.Quincel said:
People in K&C didn't have their first house bought for them by their parents, and many perceive having to do so for their children if they want to get on the property ladder a major issue they aren't desperately happy with.HYUFD said:
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/17/average-house-price-times-annual-salary-official-figures-ons
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around0 -
I've delivered 5 different Lib Dem leaflets for the candidates in our two main local target wards during the past few weeks and I'll be delivering another one tomorrow. Not a single one of those leaflets have made any mention of Brexit - and our candidates are very much focused on the local issues for these elections.JosiasJessop said:I cannot understand the Lib Dems' position for these elections. Their recent PPB seemed to focus entirely on Brexit. Whilst that is a USP for them, I doubt many people will be changing their vote for the locals on the strength of it - after all, the Lib Dems have been the 'proper' remain party for a couple of years now.
What the Lib Dems need is to shout out their values and what the party can offer the country - and there is a saleable product there. Instead, they're navel-gazing on an area that won't change votes.
Cable is an absolute disaster.
0 -
We must be neighbours! In order to address the problem of gender inequality and make parliament look just like we do-about a 50-50 gender split,Labour chose the tool of all-women shortlists to achieve the goal of gender equality which a Corbyn government would be with great candidates like Karen a 50-50 gender split.justin124 said:
The introduction of All Women Shortlists has been a disgrace since it first happened in the mid-1990s. I live in the key marginal of Norwich North - but will not vote for a gender vetted Labour candidate.NickPalmer said:
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.TGOHF said:https://news.sky.com/story/300-women-quit-labour-to-protest-all-women-shortlist-update-11354746
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
What's your next excuse?0 -
Of course, many do move. London is a net importer of 20-somethings but a net exporter of 30-somethings, precisely the age when people start putting down serious roots and have to decide between home ownership and location. And recent trends in commuter towns and other (cheaper) cities show these people take their Labour voting with them. Something about finding they can't live and work in London like the last generation did doesn't sit well with them.Quincel said:
Why do people not like the idea of having to choose between home ownership and living near their family, friends, and where they grew up? A decision the last generation didn't have to make. Hmm...welshowl said:
Why not move then?
When unemployment in the Welsh valleys (and other places) was high and the jobs were elsewhere, people migrated to get a better life (ie employment). Not possible for all of course, but those that are in the best position as a group so to do are precisely the twenty somethings out of full time education. Why not move to an area of better affordability within the UK if a house is so important?0 -
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)0 -
@Quincel
Yes, of course. But I do find it a tad ironic from my geographical position that the same sort of life questions are now being asked of Londoners as were asked of other parts of the country for decades (if for different economic reasons). We have few on here pointing out how much they enjoy their "progressive and open" (I paraphrase slightly) city. Fair enough, crack on, good luck and all that, the obverse of that is the competition for accommodation. We should build more sure, but it seems a touch Sisyphean as long as there's an effective open door to huge numbers of people.0 -
The average PROPERTY is worth a milion in those boroughs but that average includes thousands of ex and current social housing. You won't get a house for a £1m - maybe not even a nice one bed flat in some areas.HYUFD said:
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.0 -
ROFLQuincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
0 -
Broader society has to grip the problem of the label "woman" - is it about your life experiences (so that trans-women frequently fall outside it) or something else.MarkHopkins said:NickPalmer said:
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.TGOHF said:https://news.sky.com/story/300-women-quit-labour-to-protest-all-women-shortlist-update-11354746
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?
The problem facing all women shortlists is a bit different. All-women shortlists were proposed on the basis that women were:
1. Under-represented in Parliament;
2. Discriminated against in wider society;
3. Discriminated against in selection processes;
4. Had different/valuable skills to bring to parliament.
As time has gone on, we now have to ask which and what to what extent all of those things are true (and/or are shared by trans-women).0 -
Loving the sarcastic ending there.Danny565 said:
More likely a beneficial impact on the Conservatives. Why Labour thought it would be fruitful to bang on about an immigration issue for weeks before an election, rather than on the economic and austerity issues on which they actually do have public sympathy, I have no idea. It is even making me rethink my assessment of Diane Abbott as a political genius!Slackbladder said:
Windrush seems to have absolutely no impact.nunuone said:
None of it amounts to a row of beans it seems......rottenborough said:More trouble for May...
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/991277540084998144
another increasing Tory lead....what if this is more like 2015 where the tories end up with a 7% lead?0 -
It will be before too long anyway. The legislation has a sunset clause of 2030. It was originally due to expire in 2015 but Harriet Harman extended it in one of the last Acts of the 2005-10 parliament.MarkHopkins said:NickPalmer said:
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.TGOHF said:https://news.sky.com/story/300-women-quit-labour-to-protest-all-women-shortlist-update-11354746
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?0 -
Surgery isn't just about the bit in the operating theatre. You (or your junior) generally see the patients before and after.DecrepitJohnL said:
It starts well enough but meanders into a rant about general practice. One odd thing though is the figures for specialities show women favour anaethesia over surgery -- but can this be due to antisocial hours? Am I missing something here? Don't anaesthetists and surgeons operate together or do anaesthetists change shifts halfway through long operations? If the hours are the same then there must be some other explanation.Alanbrooke said:
it appears the ladies are still getting there firstMattW said:
I thought they were retiring younger than that, having maxed out their tax free pension pots.SandyRentool said:
Or the gentlemen doctors who retire at 58 could put a few more shifts in?David_Evershed said:Alanbrooke said:
maybe they should just try training more at homerottenborough said:
Maybe all the part time lady doctors could work full time?
I'll get my coat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html
There are lots of issues around sex and specialty selection. We've just submitting a research paper on this topic, but not accepted so I can't share yet. Meanwhile, there's useful background in:
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0413-5 "Sex differences in medico-legal action against doctors: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-018-1178-2 "Passing MRCP (UK) PACES: a cross-sectional study examining the performance of doctors by sex and country"
And on the topic of giving visas to overseas doctors:
https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-017-0903-6 "Prevalence of GMC performance assessments in the United Kingdom: a retrospective cohort analysis by country of medical qualification"
All against a backdrop of huge shortages in many healthcare professions.0 -
I am not sure that any excuse arises. I have never been persuaded that a 50-50 gender split is desirable for its own sake . I really could not give a damn as to the candidate's gender but will not be told that I can ONLY have a woman candidate. Voters deserve to be presented with the best candidate available - regardless of gender.On the same basis , I am strongly opposed to All -Black Shortlists - All -Gay Shortlists - and indeed All - Paedophile Shortlists.volcanopete said:
We must be neighbours! In order to address the problem of gender inequality and make parliament look just like we do-about a 50-50 gender split,Labour chose the tool of all-women shortlists to achieve the goal of gender equality which a Corbyn government would be with great candidates like Karen a 50-50 gender split.justin124 said:
The introduction of All Women Shortlists has been a disgrace since it first happened in the mid-1990s. I live in the key marginal of Norwich North - but will not vote for a gender vetted Labour candidate.NickPalmer said:
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.TGOHF said:https://news.sky.com/story/300-women-quit-labour-to-protest-all-women-shortlist-update-11354746
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
What's your next excuse?
I shall vote Labour on Thursday but will be spoiling my ballot paper at the General Election - and have persuaded three other voters to do likewise.0 -
You don't like it - tough. You cannot buck the market .Quincel said:
Why do people not like the idea of having to choose between home ownership and living near their family, friends, and where they grew up? A decision the last generation didn't have to make. Hmm...welshowl said:
Why not move then?Quincel said:
People in K&C didn't have their first house bought for them by their parents, and many perceive having to do so for their children if they want to get on the property ladder a major issue they aren't desperately happy with.HYUFD said:
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!Quincel said:
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.HYUFD said:
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstepSlackbladder said:Owen Jones
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @OwenJones84
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/17/average-house-price-times-annual-salary-official-figures-ons
When unemployment in the Welsh valleys (and other places) was high and the jobs were elsewhere, people migrated to get a better life (ie employment). Not possible for all of course, but those that are in the best position as a group so to do are precisely the twenty somethings out of full time education. Why not move to an area of better affordability within the UK if a house is so important?0 -
Indeed. Better to work with organisations like 50/50 Parliament who are encouraging good women to stand, rather than the outdated reliance on quotas and AWS.MarkHopkins said:NickPalmer said:
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.TGOHF said:https://news.sky.com/story/300-women-quit-labour-to-protest-all-women-shortlist-update-11354746
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?0 -
Not sure there will be much public sympathy to foreign students.williamglenn said:
In any case - Theresa May has been resolute in her view that she wants to reduce foreign student numbers coming to the country. This is a feature not a bug.0 -
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLQuincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons0 -
Poverty is less than £320 a week. 60% of average earnings. It is a measure of inequality not destitution.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLQuincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
0 -
Absolutely.Quincel said:
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.0 -
Her opposition to foreign students is one of her more foolish standpoints. If the authorities concerntrated on the standards of the places such students attended, I’d be more sympathetic.rkrkrk said:
Not sure there will be much public sympathy to foreign students.williamglenn said:
In any case - Theresa May has been resolute in her view that she wants to reduce foreign student numbers coming to the country. This is a feature not a bug.0 -
"All-PBer shortlists:"
"All-PBer shortlists are where all the candidates have posted at least one message to PB within the last electoral cycle."0 -
likewise I'd warn generally that assuming people who vote Labour in their 20s will do so in their 50s has a poor track recordQuincel said:
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLQuincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
0 -
Except it was the voters outside London who voted Leave largely to end free movementQuincel said:
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLQuincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons0 -
Does that not also depend on the size of a household? A single person earning £320 a week does not strike me as poor - particularly if there are no dependants and no mortgage to pay.notme said:
Poverty is less than £320 a week. 60% of average earnings. It is a measure of inequality not destitution.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLQuincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons0 -
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.Quincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too0 -
Theresa going to a make those 200 new Peers?Scott_P said:
Nabavi, Herdson, JohnO (but NOT TSE) your time has come!
#ermine 0 -
No new houses and flats? Protect our greenbelt? Tory failure on potholes? etcTorby_Fennel said:
I've delivered 5 different Lib Dem leaflets for the candidates in our two main local target wards during the past few weeks and I'll be delivering another one tomorrow. Not a single one of those leaflets have made any mention of Brexit - and our candidates are very much focused on the local issues for these elections.JosiasJessop said:I cannot understand the Lib Dems' position for these elections. Their recent PPB seemed to focus entirely on Brexit. Whilst that is a USP for them, I doubt many people will be changing their vote for the locals on the strength of it - after all, the Lib Dems have been the 'proper' remain party for a couple of years now.
What the Lib Dems need is to shout out their values and what the party can offer the country - and there is a saleable product there. Instead, they're navel-gazing on an area that won't change votes.
Cable is an absolute disaster.0 -
Very interesting paper - thanks for sharing.bondegezou said:
And on the topic of giving visas to overseas doctors:
https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-017-0903-6 "Prevalence of GMC performance assessments in the United Kingdom: a retrospective cohort analysis by country of medical qualification"
All against a backdrop of huge shortages in many healthcare professions.0 -
But if we put on a dress and self declare as female, will we get an advantage?Sunil_Prasannan said:"All-PBer shortlists:"
"All-PBer shortlists are where all the candidates have posted at least one message to PB within the last electoral cycle."
0 -
Eddie Izzard's career hasn't been a noticeable successHertsmere_Pubgoer said:
But if we put on a dress and self declare as female, will we get an advantage?Sunil_Prasannan said:"All-PBer shortlists:"
"All-PBer shortlists are where all the candidates have posted at least one message to PB within the last electoral cycle."0 -
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?HYUFD said:
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.Quincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too0 -
Indeed. Good thing I've not made that assumption or argument at any point. My argument is that people in their 40s-50s are more likely to vote Labour if they see their children being priced out of the area they brought them up in.Alanbrooke said:
likewise I'd warn generally that assuming people who vote Labour in their 20s will do so in their 50s has a poor track recordQuincel said:
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLQuincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons0 -
In policy terms it's an absolute disaster, but I suspect it is quite a popular stance amongst conservative members/voters.OldKingCole said:
Her opposition to foreign students is one of her more foolish standpoints. If the authorities concerntrated on the standards of the places such students attended, I’d be more sympathetic.rkrkrk said:
Not sure there will be much public sympathy to foreign students.williamglenn said:
In any case - Theresa May has been resolute in her view that she wants to reduce foreign student numbers coming to the country. This is a feature not a bug.
Foreigners + young people + they don't speak english well enough (allegedly) ticks the boxes for irritating the Daily Express/Mail very nicely.0 -
Thank you. That does sound very unfortunate for your friend. It does seem to me that that sort of a fine is very large and not very sensible. Perhaps a smaller fine or a warning might have been better.Roger said:OT. cyclefree. Thanks for your interesting comment on my cafe owner friend. You're more compassionate than the average PBer. Out of interest one piece of information that I didn't know when I wrote that letter is that he had produced a work permit but it was a fake. One readily available on the internet apparently and whether because it was convincing or he was too inexperienced to know the difference I don't know but £15,000 is a big price to pay for a very honest mistake.
The trouble is that common-sense and reasonable judgment are not very evident amongst our bureaucrats, often because they are hobbled by the rules or by silly targets.
I hope your friend is doing well, now, though.0 -
Eddie Izzard's political career? Maybe maybe not time will tell isn't he on the Lab national executive?Alanbrooke said:
Eddie Izzard's career hasn't been a noticeable successHertsmere_Pubgoer said:
But if we put on a dress and self declare as female, will we get an advantage?Sunil_Prasannan said:"All-PBer shortlists:"
"All-PBer shortlists are where all the candidates have posted at least one message to PB within the last electoral cycle."
Eddie Izzard's non-political career? Phenomenally successful - get out of your political geek bubble, Alan.0 -
because all the sensible people have moved to the countryside ?Quincel said:
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?HYUFD said:
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.Quincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
0 -
Well if Labour win Kensington and Chelsea on Thursday I will admit I was wrong, that is a big if howeverQuincel said:
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?HYUFD said:
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.Quincel said:
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.HYUFD said:
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too0
