politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson wonders how much we can trust the referendum
Comments
-
Don't talk crap , under the electoral system they were the choice of the people to form a government.Scott_P said:
That's not true either. More "people" wanted something else.malcolmg said:under the electoral system used the choice of the people ( more people than for others ) was for an SNP government.
They got the SNP0 -
9,263 postal votes in WM PCC election0
-
Make them shovel shit for their benefits,Flightpath said:
No one in their right minds will employ the Wayne and Waynettas of this world. Or da gangsta rappers inda 'hood.OldKingCole said:
I don’t often agree with Financier but here he is on the right track. We do have a problem with education. It’s apparently been taken for granted for years that there will be a difficult to educate “lumpenproletariat” and that there will be simple, probably manual, jobs for them to do. Many of those jobs are either not going to be there in future, and as a society we’ve got to encourage those who “haven’t done well at school” to do what many of us now do normally..... contune their education right through life.Financier said:
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?malcolmg said:
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.Patrick said:
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.Smarmeron said:@Patrick
Build gas chambers for the poor?
Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane?
(Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
I doubt anyone will employ any of their children. How do you break the circle or do we put up with this underclass?0 -
I don't have to do anything. It didn't happen all over the world, and why are you so insulting and rude when someone tries to engage with you on the points you raise?Smarmeron said:@HurstLlama
Don't get to comfortable though, next you have to explain how it happened all over the world, and not Just in the UK.0 -
Would this sum up your views?Smarmeron said:You are right about that, the point is that everyone thought the same thing, politicians, bankers, the public and the financial sector. and it happened everywhere.
Illusions and delusions, but we won't get fooled again will we?Upon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought, and views of life. The entire class creates and forms them out of its material foundations and out of the corresponding social relations.
0 -
As I posted upthread, the SNP got 44-45% of the votes. Even adding Margo MacDonald’s votes doesn’t take the figure anywhere near 50.1%!malcolmg said:
Don't talk crap , under the electoral system they were the choice of the people to form a government.Scott_P said:
That's not true either. More "people" wanted something else.malcolmg said:under the electoral system used the choice of the people ( more people than for others ) was for an SNP government.
They got the SNP
0 -
Turnout, compared with 2012, wasn’t so bad. Consideringt it was August!AndreaParma_82 said:9,263 postal votes in WM PCC election
B****y awful, of course!0 -
I understand the site is full of pedants and that I did not phrase it to perfection and was sloppy, but you knew exactly what my gist was. In Scotland the result was that the party that got the most votes was elected , whereas in the UK vote from a Scottish perspective it was not. That will nearly always be the case given that it will always be what the vote in England chose that determines the government due to the population and rightly so. I would prefer to be independent and have Scotland choose.OldKingCole said:
Governments, certainly in the UK, are rarely elected with the support of the majority of the electorate. In 2011 the SNP got 44-45% of the votes, depending on whether you look at the Regional or Constituency votes. They got 53% of the seats, but that’s different.malcolmg said:
You can split hairs if you want , under the electoral system used the choice of the people ( more people than for others ) was for an SNP government.TheScreamingEagles said:
A majority did not vote for the SNP in 2011.malcolmg said:
Aye right, the difference is the majority voted for the SNP government in Scotland. Remind me again how many voted for a UK Tory government in Scotland.Scott_P said:
Unless the demos is reduced to you alone as single dictator, you will ALWAYS be reliant on other people voting the way "you want"malcolmg said:we will be able to get shot of them if they do not do what we want.
As darling said in the debate, he didn't vote SNP but he's stuck with an SNP administration he didn't vote for
Your argument is another fantasy
You are confusing majority with a plurality.
In 2011, a majority voted for parties that were not the SNP.
Stop being a fanny and trying to show how smart you are.0 -
There's a good chance I'll be one of the unemployed "underclass" within a year- my station (that's STATION, not Brigade, mind) has to shed 20 out of 48 operational firefighters to meet budget cuts.malcolmg said:
Make them shovel shit for their benefits,Flightpath said:
No one in their right minds will employ the Wayne and Waynettas of this world. Or da gangsta rappers inda 'hood.OldKingCole said:
I don’t often agree with Financier but here he is on the right track. We do have a problem with education. It’s apparently been taken for granted for years that there will be a difficult to educate “lumpenproletariat” and that there will be simple, probably manual, jobs for them to do. Many of those jobs are either not going to be there in future, and as a society we’ve got to encourage those who “haven’t done well at school” to do what many of us now do normally..... contune their education right through life.Financier said:
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?malcolmg said:
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.Patrick said:
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.Smarmeron said:@Patrick
Build gas chambers for the poor?
Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane?
(Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
I doubt anyone will employ any of their children. How do you break the circle or do we put up with this underclass?
Will I have to shovel shit for my benefits?
0 -
For a Friday Populus, that is dreadful for Team Blue.TheScreamingEagles said:@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 39 (+2), Con 33 (+1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 11 (-3), Oth 8 (=). Tables here: http://t.co/vrnZvVUPm7
Conservatives Awful August continues...
#NoCrossOverFriday
0 -
LOL, you better get the haggis , neeps and tatties inPatrick said:
I thought we agreed last week that you're going to eat some humble pie and wash it down with a pint of English scrumpy in a month's time!malcolmg said:
Patrick, we agree entirely for once at leastPatrick said:I think the lefties here on PB do have a serious point about actually enforcing rules against abuses by the relatively powerful in our society. What I'd like to see is genuine free market well regulated capitalism. What we have is often crony corporatism. But often the laws and rules are pathetically weak. And the ones who get away with the worst are the politicians themselves. Gordon Brown ruined this country's finances - but he's not in jail. How come there weren't laws or checks and balances to prevent it? How come bankers were allowed to bet the farm and get super rich if the bet works but taxpayers take the hit if it doesn't?
One big problem is that we will only stop abuse if abuse is actually illegal. None of it was. Sir Fred broke no laws. Gordon broke no laws - just the bank.0 -
RBS was built on sand anyway and would still have been a basket case.rcs1000 said:
Royal Bank of Scotland went bust because they spent €72billion on ABN Amro just before the world turned upside down.Smarmeron said:@Financier
Ahh, it was Fred, and Fred alone who was the bad apple?
He must have been a busy man to bring the world economy to it's knees, even with the help of Gordon?
Illusions and delusions are a powerful thing.
People forget that RBS and Barclays were in a bidding war for ABN Amro, that RBS narrowly won (Barclays bid a mere €68billion). Had Barclays bid slightly higher, or RBS slightly lower, it would have been Sir Fred and RBS who survived the global financial crisis without being bailed-out, and the management of Barclays who would have been the villains.0 -
@HurstLlama
I didn't mean to be rude to you, my bad sense of humour for which I apologise.
The crash was not a British thing alone though, America was also doing the same thing, creating "wealth" that had no substance, and by extension, all the world markets.0 -
For the previous 13 years Scotland got the UK government it voted formalcolmg said:In Scotland the result was that the party that got the most votes was elected , whereas in the UK vote from a Scottish perspective it was not.
Unless you are the only voter, the notion that 'you always get what you vote for" is another fantasy that would not survive contact with reality
You should stop peddling it. It's embarrassing0 -
Bad news, Mr. Stopper. Going back to our earlier conversations, can you tell us how many admin/support/management jobs will be going at your HQ?TwistedFireStopper said:
There's a good chance I'll be one of the unemployed "underclass" within a year- my station (that's STATION, not Brigade, mind) has to shed 20 out of 48 operational firefighters to meet budget cuts.
Will I have to shovel shit for my benefits?
P.S. Unemployed != underclass.0 -
As I explained above , I know but being a pedant and avoiding what I said is no help or does not change the valid point made. You can obfuscate all you want, Scotland does not have democracy in the UK parliament.OldKingCole said:
As I posted upthread, the SNP got 44-45% of the votes. Even adding Margo MacDonald’s votes doesn’t take the figure anywhere near 50.1%!malcolmg said:
Don't talk crap , under the electoral system they were the choice of the people to form a government.Scott_P said:
That's not true either. More "people" wanted something else.malcolmg said:under the electoral system used the choice of the people ( more people than for others ) was for an SNP government.
They got the SNP0 -
There is an obvious and important difference between wealth and income. Before the crash we thought we had a lot more of both. Asset inflation had made our wealthy obscenely rich and borrowing by both the government and the public made us think that we had a lot more income than we actually did.
To sustain a welfare state you need income, not wealth. You need a tax base that can fund the current expenditure on those in need. At the moment we are struggling to afford that and I have reservations about whether we will be able to in the foreseeable future.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the state is not wealthy but poor. It has accumulated debts of £1.3trn which is proving a major drain on available resources. It is now draining the income available by £1bn a week.
To create a viable welfare state we need to improve the tax base. This means those that do not pay their share such as multinationals must be made to do so. But it also means that we need to increase the percentage of those that are net contributors to the system by having gainful employment which does not require a subsidy.
The problem is this: because of past incompetence and dishonesty we have a situation where the income does not cover the cost and has not for a long time increasing debt. Do we continue to borrow (and risk the trap of ever more resources being spent on debt interest) or do we cut our welfare state to what the tax base funds?
Those who argue for the latter (edit woops!) are in mind simplistic and not a little bit brutal. Being nice about it I do not think they have the imagination to contemplate the degree of hardship that would be imposed. None of our mainstream parties are close to such a position.
The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics.0 -
Sandwell have finished to count the first preferences. They are sending their results to Birmingham0
-
The quebec vote is in my mind the best example to use. Turnout was 90% which was very high and the polls overestimated the Yes to No vote by about 6%. The main No voters were from the Anglophone areas and the rural areas.
It seems to me that the key thing for the No campaign now is to get people out to vote. The Yes voters are more committed but the general population is against a risky move. Thus the Yes votes could be as low as 35-40% with a big turnout. To get a Yes majority may require a really strong Westerly Gale. Maybe worth looking at the weather forecast a few weeks before the vote.
0 -
@Life_ina_market_town
To a certain extent yes, but it is part of human nature to seek a comfort blanket from life's harsher realities. It explains why some of our citizens seek the path of Jihad, while others choose another "certainty"
To see reality invites madness, but never lifting your blinkers at all, is certain disaster.0 -
Not many, is the simple answer.HurstLlama said:
Bad news, Mr. Stopper. Going back to our earlier conversations, can you tell us how many admin/support/management jobs will be going at your HQ?TwistedFireStopper said:
There's a good chance I'll be one of the unemployed "underclass" within a year- my station (that's STATION, not Brigade, mind) has to shed 20 out of 48 operational firefighters to meet budget cuts.
Will I have to shovel shit for my benefits?
P.S. Unemployed != underclass.
0 -
And, right on cue, a fascinating article by Fraser Nelson on inequality and wealth in the UK and the US:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/why-britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-other-than-mississippi/
0 -
No I was not at all , I was answering a qualified point on a certain type of person who it was claimed would neither work nor want.TwistedFireStopper said:
There's a good chance I'll be one of the unemployed "underclass" within a year- my station (that's STATION, not Brigade, mind) has to shed 20 out of 48 operational firefighters to meet budget cuts.malcolmg said:
Make them shovel shit for their benefits,Flightpath said:
?OldKingCole said:
probably manual, jobs for them to do. Many of those jobs are either not going to be there in future, and as a society we’ve got to encourage those who “haven’t done well at school” to do what many of us now do normally..... contune their education right through life.Financier said:
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?malcolmg said:
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.Patrick said:
Will I have to shovel shit for my benefits?
I believe in benefits but it should not be a way of life or chosen career and at some point people should pay for it. Either by tax when they are working or if they refuse to participate in society then by menial tasks for their benefits If you had read all my comments however you would see that I was blaming the rich for doing nothing and persecuting the poor. It is hard to blame someone from doing nothing when they get more money from doing that than from working.
Go look to take your ire out on the right wingers on here who would have you in the workhouse the day after they did away with your job.0 -
Ha Ha Ha, I will stop trying to educate you , your pea brain is unable to take anything in.Scott_P said:
For the previous 13 years Scotland got the UK government it voted formalcolmg said:In Scotland the result was that the party that got the most votes was elected , whereas in the UK vote from a Scottish perspective it was not.
Unless you are the only voter, the notion that 'you always get what you vote for" is another fantasy that would not survive contact with reality
You should stop peddling it. It's embarrassing0 -
Coventry
Lab 12394 votes
Con 5061
LD 1031
UKIP 35350 -
Leftwingers, Rightwingers, two cheeks of the same arse, mate.malcolmg said:
No I was not at all , I was answering a qualified point on a certain type of person who it was claimed would neither work nor want.TwistedFireStopper said:
There's a good chance I'll be one of the unemployed "underclass" within a year- my station (that's STATION, not Brigade, mind) has to shed 20 out of 48 operational firefighters to meet budget cuts.malcolmg said:
Make them shovel shit for their benefits,Flightpath said:
?OldKingCole said:
probably manual, jobs for them to do. Many of those jobs are either not going to be there in future, and as a society we’ve got to encourage those who “haven’t done well at school” to do what many of us now do normally..... contune their education right through life.Financier said:
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?malcolmg said:
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.Patrick said:
Will I have to shovel shit for my benefits?
I believe in benefits but it should not be a way of life or chosen career and at some point people should pay for it. Either by tax when they are working or if they refuse to participate in society then by menial tasks for their benefits If you had read all my comments however you would see that I was blaming the rich for doing nothing and persecuting the poor. It is hard to blame someone from doing nothing when they get more money from doing that than from working.
Go look to take your ire out on the right wingers on here who would have you in the workhouse the day after they did away with your job.
0 -
Top postDavidL said:There is an obvious and important difference between wealth and income. Before the crash we thought we had a lot more of both. Asset inflation had made our wealthy obscenely rich and borrowing by both the government and the public made us think that we had a lot more income than we actually did.
To sustain a welfare state you need income, not wealth. You need a tax base that can fund the current expenditure on those in need. At the moment we are struggling to afford that and I have reservations about whether we will be able to in the foreseeable future.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the state is not wealthy but poor. It has accumulated debts of £1.3trn which is proving a major drain on available resources. It is now draining the income available by £1bn a week.
To create a viable welfare state we need to improve the tax base. This means those that do not pay their share such as multinationals must be made to do so. But it also means that we need to increase the percentage of those that are net contributors to the system by having gainful employment which does not require a subsidy.
The problem is this: because of past incompetence and dishonesty we have a situation where the income does not cover the cost and has not for a long time increasing debt. Do we continue to borrow (and risk the trap of ever more resources being spent on debt interest) or do we cut our welfare state to what the tax base funds?
Those who argue for the latter (edit woops!) are in mind simplistic and not a little bit brutal. Being nice about it I do not think they have the imagination to contemplate the degree of hardship that would be imposed. None of our mainstream parties are close to such a position.
The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics.0 -
And nor does Surrey, whenever there is a Labour government. There must be parts of Scotland which rarely vote for whichever of Labour or the SNP rules in Edinburgh. Should they have independence too? Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and return to Russia. What happens when the Shetlands want to rejoin the UK?malcolmg said:
As I explained above , I know but being a pedant and avoiding what I said is no help or does not change the valid point made. You can obfuscate all you want, Scotland does not have democracy in the UK parliament.OldKingCole said:
As I posted upthread, the SNP got 44-45% of the votes. Even adding Margo MacDonald’s votes doesn’t take the figure anywhere near 50.1%!malcolmg said:
Don't talk crap , under the electoral system they were the choice of the people to form a government.Scott_P said:
That's not true either. More "people" wanted something else.malcolmg said:under the electoral system used the choice of the people ( more people than for others ) was for an SNP government.
They got the SNP
Your argument works only because you regard Scotland as an independent and indivisible nation.
0 -
You stupid TURNIP , Liverpool is not a country. Go and play tig on the M8 and give us peace from your stupid imbicelic wittering.Scott_P said:
Yes it does.malcolmg said:Scotland does not have democracy in the UK parliament.
Scotland is not a separate demos.
Your statement is as ludicrous as saying "Liverpool does not have democracy in the UK Parliament"0 -
Birmingham
Jamieson (Lab) 39,406
Jones (Con) 17,338
Rowe (UKIP) 9,162
Khan (LD) 7,543,0 -
David , your Tory fantasies about the Scottish government and your personal hatred and constant insulting of Alex Salmond , sure says a lot about you.DavidL said:There is an obvious and important difference between wealth and income. Before the crash we thought we had a lot more of both. Asset inflation had made our wealthy obscenely rich and borrowing by both the government and the public made us think that we had a lot more income than we actually did.
To sustain a welfare state you need income, not wealth. You need a tax base that can fund the current expenditure on those in need. At the moment we are struggling to afford that and I have reservations about whether we will be able to in the foreseeable future.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the state is not wealthy but poor. It has accumulated debts of £1.3trn which is proving a major drain on available resources. It is now draining the income available by £1bn a week.
To create a viable welfare state we need to improve the tax base. This means those that do not pay their share such as multinationals must be made to do so. But it also means that we need to increase the percentage of those that are net contributors to the system by having gainful employment which does not require a subsidy.
The problem is this: because of past incompetence and dishonesty we have a situation where the income does not cover the cost and has not for a long time increasing debt. Do we continue to borrow (and risk the trap of ever more resources being spent on debt interest) or do we cut our welfare state to what the tax base funds?
Those who argue for the latter (edit woops!) are in mind simplistic and not a little bit brutal. Being nice about it I do not think they have the imagination to contemplate the degree of hardship that would be imposed. None of our mainstream parties are close to such a position.
The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics.0 -
And what does your constant insulting of everybody who isn't SNP or Yes say about you?malcolmg said:
David , your Tory fantasies about the Scottish government and your personal hatred and constant insulting of Alex Salmond , sure says a lot about you.DavidL said:There is an obvious and important difference between wealth and income. Before the crash we thought we had a lot more of both. Asset inflation had made our wealthy obscenely rich and borrowing by both the government and the public made us think that we had a lot more income than we actually did.
To sustain a welfare state you need income, not wealth. You need a tax base that can fund the current expenditure on those in need. At the moment we are struggling to afford that and I have reservations about whether we will be able to in the foreseeable future.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the state is not wealthy but poor. It has accumulated debts of £1.3trn which is proving a major drain on available resources. It is now draining the income available by £1bn a week.
To create a viable welfare state we need to improve the tax base. This means those that do not pay their share such as multinationals must be made to do so. But it also means that we need to increase the percentage of those that are net contributors to the system by having gainful employment which does not require a subsidy.
The problem is this: because of past incompetence and dishonesty we have a situation where the income does not cover the cost and has not for a long time increasing debt. Do we continue to borrow (and risk the trap of ever more resources being spent on debt interest) or do we cut our welfare state to what the tax base funds?
Those who argue for the latter (edit woops!) are in mind simplistic and not a little bit brutal. Being nice about it I do not think they have the imagination to contemplate the degree of hardship that would be imposed. None of our mainstream parties are close to such a position.
The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics.
Love Pedantic Fanny xxx0 -
My Tribe; Good or BadTheScreamingEagles said:
And what does your constant insulting of everybody who isn't SNP or Yes say about you?
Love Pedantic Fanny xxx
Like football casuals...0 -
Fine when you are stinky rich and stay that way than when you are poor and lose what little you have. Rich right wingers always choose to make the poor pay for the problem.HurstLlama said:
Top postDavidL said:There is an obvious and important difference between wealth and income. Before the crash we thought we had a lot more of both. Asset inflation had made our wealthy obscenely rich and borrowing by both the government and the public made us think that we had a lot more income than we actually did.
To sustain a welfare state you need income, not wealth. You need a tax base that can fund the current expenditure on those in need. At the moment we are struggling to afford that and I have reservations about whether we will be able to in the foreseeable future.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the state is not wealthy but poor. It has accumulated debts of £1.3trn which is proving a major drain on available resources. It is now draining the income available by £1bn a week.
To create a viable welfare state we need to improve the tax base. This means those that do not pay their share such as multinationals must be made to do so. But it also means that we need to increase the percentage of those that are net contributors to the system by having gainful employment which does not require a subsidy.
The problem is this: because of past incompetence and dishonesty we have a situation where the income does not cover the cost and has not for a long time increasing debt. Do we continue to borrow (and risk the trap of ever more resources being spent on debt interest) or do we cut our welfare state to what the tax base funds?
Those who argue for the latter (edit woops!) are in mind simplistic and not a little bit brutal. Being nice about it I do not think they have the imagination to contemplate the degree of hardship that would be imposed. None of our mainstream parties are close to such a position.
The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics.0 -
Just out of curiosity of what happens if the Indyref result is exactly 50/50?
Do we a replay a few months later?0 -
@DavidL
I agree, income and expenditure need to be in balance for a sustainable wefare state to exist. An unsustainable one is no use to anyone other than in the very short term.
The current low inflation, low unemployment macro-environment is the least painful part of the economic cycle to restructure tax and spending, but we have to steer between the rocks quite carefully.
@TFS
Sorry to hear of the redundancies. Hope it works out for you.0 -
Oh who is being a big jessie today thenTheScreamingEagles said:
And what does your constant insulting of everybody who isn't SNP or Yes say about you?malcolmg said:
David , your Tory fantasies about the Scottish government and your personal hatred and constant insulting of Alex Salmond , sure says a lot about you.DavidL said:There is an obvious and important difference between wealth and income. Before the crash we thought we had a lot more of both. Asset inflation had made our wealthy obscenely rich and borrowing by both the government and the public made us think that we had a lot more income than we actually did.
To sustain a welfare state you need income, not wealth. You need a tax base that can fund the current expenditure on those in need. At the moment we are struggling to afford that and I have reservations about whether we will be able to in the foreseeable future.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the state is not wealthy but poor. It has accumulated debts of £1.3trn which is proving a major drain on available resources. It is now draining the income available by £1bn a week.
To create a viable welfare state we need to improve the tax base. This means those that do not pay their share such as multinationals must be made to do so. But it also means that we need to increase the percentage of those that are net contributors to the system by having gainful employment which does not require a subsidy.
The problem is this: because of past incompetence and dishonesty we have a situation where the income does not cover the cost and has not for a long time increasing debt. Do we continue to borrow (and risk the trap of ever more resources being spent on debt interest) or do we cut our welfare state to what the tax base funds?
Those who argue for the latter (edit woops!) are in mind simplistic and not a little bit brutal. Being nice about it I do not think they have the imagination to contemplate the degree of hardship that would be imposed. None of our mainstream parties are close to such a position.
The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics.
Love Pedantic Fanny xxx0 -
I thought that might be the case. It seems to be universal, the "B Ark" people are being kept on whilst the people who deliver the service the organisation is there to provide are chopped. What I cannot understand is how this is being allowed to happen. If it were just one brigade, or one police force or one council, or even just a few. It would be understandable, but it seems to be all of them. Some sort of collective madness has overtaken the people who draw huge salaries for providing a public service and nobody seems to be complaining or doing anything about it.TwistedFireStopper said:
Not many, is the simple answer.HurstLlama said:
Bad news, Mr. Stopper. Going back to our earlier conversations, can you tell us how many admin/support/management jobs will be going at your HQ?TwistedFireStopper said:
There's a good chance I'll be one of the unemployed "underclass" within a year- my station (that's STATION, not Brigade, mind) has to shed 20 out of 48 operational firefighters to meet budget cuts.
Will I have to shovel shit for my benefits?
P.S. Unemployed != underclass.0 -
Labour should be over 50% also in Sandwell. I expect them to win Walsall and Wolverhampton but with less than 50%. They will be behind in Solihull. I wonder who will be at the top in Dudley.
It could go to second round but Labour should be comfortably in front.0 -
Some ploy to encourage reverse-mortgages (Equity release) on high value assets & land ?DavidL said:There is an obvious and important difference between wealth and income. Before the crash we thought we had a lot more of both. Asset inflation had made our wealthy obscenely rich and borrowing by both the government and the public made us think that we had a lot more income than we actually did.
To sustain a welfare state you need income, not wealth. You need a tax base that can fund the current expenditure on those in need. At the moment we are struggling to afford that and I have reservations about whether we will be able to in the foreseeable future.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the state is not wealthy but poor. It has accumulated debts of £1.3trn which is proving a major drain on available resources. It is now draining the income available by £1bn a week.
To create a viable welfare state we need to improve the tax base. This means those that do not pay their share such as multinationals must be made to do so. But it also means that we need to increase the percentage of those that are net contributors to the system by having gainful employment which does not require a subsidy.
The problem is this: because of past incompetence and dishonesty we have a situation where the income does not cover the cost and has not for a long time increasing debt. Do we continue to borrow (and risk the trap of ever more resources being spent on debt interest) or do we cut our welfare state to what the tax base funds?
Those who argue for the latter (edit woops!) are in mind simplistic and not a little bit brutal. Being nice about it I do not think they have the imagination to contemplate the degree of hardship that would be imposed. None of our mainstream parties are close to such a position.
The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics.
E.G.
Someone has land worth £1.5 million, but they only earn £20k a year (A farmer or some such)
They release £150k of equity, the bank doesn't pursue said person for the cash, they simply own 10% of the land now and in perpetuity. There is a tax of 1% on the £150k netting £1.5k for the Gov't,
So Gov't + £1.5k
Landowner -£1.5k but £148.5k transferred to more liquid assets (Property -> Cash)
Bank Nil.
Its a kite flying idea and it may be a load of nonsense but if there is a large asset base then perhaps a way to tap it would be good...0 -
DavidL
''The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics. ''
In fact the govt have a coherent plan - its not an answer 'of sorts'.. So to criticise the govt on this is wide of the mark.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002037.html#more
''By 2018-19, according to the IFS, a deficit reduction programme equivalent to 11.5% of GDP will have been achieved. Apart from in the special conditions of moving from war to peace, I do not think that has ever been done before.''
Its not an easy task because the mess inherited was worse than thought -
''in November 2011 when the OBR changed its view on the economy’s productive potential, so more of the deficit was deemed to be structural – and thus requiring tax hikes or spending cuts – and less of it cyclical, in other words disappearing with the recovery.''0 -
Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html0 -
You.malcolmg said:
Oh who is being a big jessie today thenTheScreamingEagles said:
And what does your constant insulting of everybody who isn't SNP or Yes say about you?malcolmg said:
David , your Tory fantasies about the Scottish government and your personal hatred and constant insulting of Alex Salmond , sure says a lot about you.DavidL said:There is an obvious and important difference between wealth and income. Before the crash we thought we had a lot more of both. Asset inflation had made our wealthy obscenely rich and borrowing by both the government and the public made us think that we had a lot more income than we actually did.
To sustain a welfare state you need income, not wealth. You need a tax base that can fund the current expenditure on those in need. At the moment we are struggling to afford that and I have reservations about whether we will be able to in the foreseeable future.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the state is not wealthy but poor. It has accumulated debts of £1.3trn which is proving a major drain on available resources. It is now draining the income available by £1bn a week.
To create a viable welfare state we need to improve the tax base. This means those that do not pay their share such as multinationals must be made to do so. But it also means that we need to increase the percentage of those that are net contributors to the system by having gainful employment which does not require a subsidy.
The problem is this: because of past incompetence and dishonesty we have a situation where the income does not cover the cost and has not for a long time increasing debt. Do we continue to borrow (and risk the trap of ever more resources being spent on debt interest) or do we cut our welfare state to what the tax base funds?
Those who argue for the latter (edit woops!) are in mind simplistic and not a little bit brutal. Being nice about it I do not think they have the imagination to contemplate the degree of hardship that would be imposed. None of our mainstream parties are close to such a position.
The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics.
Love Pedantic Fanny xxx0 -
I'm a vested interest. Of course I am, I don't want to lose my job at the age of 48 or 49. The FBU use the tired old phrase "Cuts Cost Lives" too often, but genuinely, the cuts proposed in my brigade are the closest to that cliché that we've ever come.
4 firefighters on one pump to cover a patch with a population of approximately 100000. 4 riders aren't enough to implement standard safety procedures at a house fire with persons reported, and the nearest backup pumps will be 10 minutes away, if they're available, putting the initial crew under pressure to commit BA without proper safety considerations in place. That puts us, and the public in danger, because we might not commit until a second pump arrives, or we might commit when we should have waited.
Government stats say that 80% of fatalities in domestic property fires are dead before we arrive. Looks like we've given up on the other 20% too.0 -
You cant be too surprised.TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
I'm amazed he didnt advise Malky to blame the texts on his dog.0 -
Don't be silly, Mr. G., what has my income (and I am certainly not rich) got to do with the basic point that a welfare state must be affordable in order to be sustainable.malcolmg said:
Fine when you are stinky rich and stay that way than when you are poor and lose what little you have. Rich right wingers always choose to make the poor pay for the problem.0 -
I don't think the dog would have sent thisNeil said:
You cant be too surprised.TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
I'm amazed he didnt advise Malky to blame the texts on his dog.
"Fkn chinkys. Fk it. There's enough dogs in Cardiff for us all to go around."0 -
Be fair, Mr Eagles, nothing to stop Mackay getting a job where he isn’t in a postion to employ people. He’s a prat of the first order, of course!TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html
And good luck. Threats of redundancy are very, very unpleasant indeed.0 -
Walsall
Labour 10,071
Con 5790
UKIP 4134
LD 8920 -
Football managers have never really left the world of Life on Mars, have they.TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html0 -
Ah, I wish I were a rich right winger. One of these days...
Don't forget, kids, P2 starts at 1pm. Who knows who'll be driving for Marussia. Could be Chilton. Could be Rossi. Could be Lord Lucan.0 -
The discourse on here gets more Socratic by the day.TheScreamingEagles said:
You.malcolmg said:
Oh who is being a big jessie today thenTheScreamingEagles said:
And what does your constant insulting of everybody who isn't SNP or Yes say about you?malcolmg said:
David , your Tory fantasies about the Scottish government and your personal hatred and constant insulting of Alex Salmond , sure says a lot about you.DavidL said:There is an obvious and important difference between wealth and income. Before the crash we thought we had a lot more of both. Asset inflation had made our wealthy obscenely rich and borrowing by both the government and the public made us think that we had a lot more income than we actually did.
To sustain a welfare state you need income, not wealth. You need a tax base that can fund the current expenditure on those in need. At the moment we are struggling to afford that and I have reservations about whether we will be able to in the foreseeable future.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the state is not wealthy but poor. It has accumulated debts of £1.3trn which is proving a major drain on available resources. It is now draining the income available by £1bn a week.
To create a viable welfare state we need to improve the tax base. This means those that do not pay their share such as multinationals must be made to do so. But it also means that we need to increase the percentage of those that are net contributors to the system by having gainful employment which does not require a subsidy.
The problem is this: because of past incompetence and dishonesty we have a situation where the income does not cover the cost and has not for a long time increasing debt. Do we continue to borrow (and risk the trap of ever more resources being spent on debt interest) or do we cut our welfare state to what the tax base funds?
Those who argue for the latter (edit woops!) are in mind simplistic and not a little bit brutal. Being nice about it I do not think they have the imagination to contemplate the degree of hardship that would be imposed. None of our mainstream parties are close to such a position.
The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics.
Love Pedantic Fanny xxx0 -
I agree with Patrick and MalcolmG: people at the top are very good at taking the rewards in the good times but bloody awful at taking responsibility when things go wrong and bad stuff happens. That needs to change for people in charge, whether they're in the private or public sector.
Nothing infuriates people below more than the sense that the "lttle guy" gets made the scapegoat or suffers the consequence with those at the top getting off scot free.
Is there the will to change this? Really change? Hmm .... not sure. Some people get it. But not enough.
Are things getting better in the financial sector? Like the curate's egg - but mostly a work-in-progress.0 -
Section 7(4) of the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 provides that:TheScreamingEagles said:Just out of curiosity of what happens if the Indyref result is exactly 50/50?
Do we a replay a few months later?The Chief Counting Officer must, for the whole of Scotland, certify—
It would therefore be open to the Chief Counting Officer to certify that the number of votes cast in favour of "Yes" and "No" was equal. It being a consultative referendum, there is no provision for, and no need for any kind of mechanism to resolve a tie. It is unlikely a further referendum could speedily be enacted. For starters, the amendment to schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (made by article 3 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013 S.I. 2013/242) which allowed the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum on independence, applies only to one referendum on independence, held before 31 December 2014. In other words, unless the Scottish Government were prepared to test their theory about the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum on independence, which they were not prepared to do in 2013, a second referendum could only take place with the consent of the Westminster Parliament.
(a) the total number of ballot papers counted,
(b) the total number of votes cast in favour of each answer to the referendum question, and
(c) the total number of rejected ballot papers.0 -
Well there's only so many times you can, inter alia, get called a turnip, a fanny and big Jessie, without it getting a response.Theuniondivvie said:The discourse on here gets more Socratic by the day.
0 -
@HurstLlama
The welfare bill is rising and not falling despite the "recovery" and the "jobs" it has created.
In essence, you are saying that the UK can't afford poor people, while the corporations that are paying no more tax than the preceding years demand the poor as a substitute for increased productivity through investment.
We need to all wake up and find a better way, or hope the black death arrives again so the bottom of the pile can get some improvement in their living standards.0 -
Solihull
Con 8317
Lab 5790
UKIP 3419
Lib Dem 9860 -
We havent discussed how terrible muslims are in ages!Theuniondivvie said:
The discourse on here gets more Socratic by the day.
Or do you mean something else by that?
0 -
I think this is a difference from Once Upon a Time. “Then” people at the top who went bust DID suffer. Now they seem to be able to just walk away.Cyclefree said:I agree with Patrick and MalcolmG: people at the top are very good at taking the rewards in the good times but bloody awful at taking responsibility when things go wrong and bad stuff happens. That needs to change for people in charge, whether they're in the private or public sector.
Nothing infuriates people below more than the sense that the "lttle guy" gets made the scapegoat or suffers the consequence with those at the top getting off scot free.
Is there the will to change this? Really change? Hmm .... not sure. Some people get it. But not enough.
Are things getting better in the financial sector? Like the curate's egg - but mostly a work-in-progress.0 -
The pendants just make themselves look total pricks, everyone knew what you meant. Just be glad you're not one of themmalcolmg said:
I understand the site is full of pedants and that I did not phrase it to perfection and was sloppy, but you knew exactly what my gist was. In Scotland the result was that the party that got the most votes was elected , whereas in the UK vote from a Scottish perspective it was not. That will nearly always be the case given that it will always be what the vote in England chose that determines the government due to the population and rightly so. I would prefer to be independent and have Scotland choose.OldKingCole said:
Governments, certainly in the UK, are rarely elected with the support of the majority of the electorate. In 2011 the SNP got 44-45% of the votes, depending on whether you look at the Regional or Constituency votes. They got 53% of the seats, but that’s different.malcolmg said:
You can split hairs if you want , under the electoral system used the choice of the people ( more people than for others ) was for an SNP government.TheScreamingEagles said:
A majority did not vote for the SNP in 2011.malcolmg said:
Aye right, the difference is the majority voted for the SNP government in Scotland. Remind me again how many voted for a UK Tory government in Scotland.Scott_P said:
Unless the demos is reduced to you alone as single dictator, you will ALWAYS be reliant on other people voting the way "you want"malcolmg said:we will be able to get shot of them if they do not do what we want.
As darling said in the debate, he didn't vote SNP but he's stuck with an SNP administration he didn't vote for
Your argument is another fantasy
You are confusing majority with a plurality.
In 2011, a majority voted for parties that were not the SNP.
Stop being a fanny and trying to show how smart you are.0 -
That doesn't bode well for a certain party next year.AndreaParma_82 said:Solihull
Con 8317
Lab 5790
UKIP 3419
Lib Dem 986
0 -
You're the one who doesn't think criminals should be locked up, so why shouldn't people who make ill judged comments be given a second chance too?TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html0 -
I remember a conversation with a deputy fire chief in which she said dealing with fires and rescuing people was a minor part of her brigade's job and was growing ever smaller and less and less important. She got quite sniffy when I said that the general public probably wouldn't agree with her idea of what was important. She had of course never been a fire-fighter, but she was a senior decision maker.TwistedFireStopper said:I'm a vested interest. Of course I am, I don't want to lose my job at the age of 48 or 49. The FBU use the tired old phrase "Cuts Cost Lives" too often, but genuinely, the cuts proposed in my brigade are the closest to that cliché that we've ever come.
4 firefighters on one pump to cover a patch with a population of approximately 100000. 4 riders aren't enough to implement standard safety procedures at a house fire with persons reported, and the nearest backup pumps will be 10 minutes away, if they're available, putting the initial crew under pressure to commit BA without proper safety considerations in place. That puts us, and the public in danger, because we might not commit until a second pump arrives, or we might commit when we should have waited.
Government stats say that 80% of fatalities in domestic property fires are dead before we arrive. Looks like we've given up on the other 20% too.0 -
Hurst, I was not talking about you. I was merely pointing out that it is normally rich people who talk about cutting our cloth etc , but they actually mean "I am all right Jack ", just stop that guy's £70 JSA as he is a no-good layabout.HurstLlama said:
Don't be silly, Mr. G., what has my income (and I am certainly not rich) got to do with the basic point that a welfare state must be affordable in order to be sustainable.malcolmg said:
Fine when you are stinky rich and stay that way than when you are poor and lose what little you have. Rich right wingers always choose to make the poor pay for the problem.
PS : I do agree with your point.0 -
That is the hope but it is based upon assumptions that the deficit is going to fall a lot faster than it has over the last several years. Last year the deficit fell a couple of billion off 120bn and many screamed about the cuts. This year it is supposed to fall more like 20bn but it is behind target at the moment.rcs1000 said:@DavidL
UK government debt-to-GDP will probably peak in 3Q next year. From that point on, while our debt pile will continue to grow, it will be diminishing in size relative to the economy.
As you know debt will continue to rise until the deficit is a smaller percentage of the GDP than the growth. I fear that particular crossover is going to be further delayed.
0 -
As one of my Scottish friend's put it to me this morning.Anorak said:
Football managers have never really left the world of Life on Mars, have they.TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html
"Why is anyone surprised that a man from South Glasgow has views that are racist, sexist and homophobic?"0 -
I really am worried about Muslims here.Neil said:
We havent discussed how terrible muslims are in ages!Theuniondivvie said:
The discourse on here gets more Socratic by the day.
Or do you mean something else by that?
I heard something on the news last night, that most British Jihadis, earlier in their life, were bad Muslims, who engaged in bad things like fornication, drinking and other un-Islamic things, saw the error of their ways and repented, and thus became Jihadis,
Am I a future Jihadi?
0 -
I would imagine he is far from the breadline in any event. He should have had enough brain cells to keep his "banter" for down the pub, not sticking it in texts and e-mails at work.Anorak said:
Football managers have never really left the world of Life on Mars, have they.TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html0 -
If a day counts as ages..Neil said:
We havent discussed how terrible muslims are in ages!Theuniondivvie said:
The discourse on here gets more Socratic by the day.
Or do you mean something else by that?
0 -
That is the problem we face. The powers that be don't like the words "Fire and Rescue".HurstLlama said:
I remember a conversation with a deputy fire chief in which she said dealing with fires and rescuing people was a minor part of her brigade's job and was growing ever smaller and less and less important. She got quite sniffy when I said that the general public probably wouldn't agree with her idea of what was important. She had of course never been a fire-fighter, but she was a senior decision maker.TwistedFireStopper said:I'm a vested interest. Of course I am, I don't want to lose my job at the age of 48 or 49. The FBU use the tired old phrase "Cuts Cost Lives" too often, but genuinely, the cuts proposed in my brigade are the closest to that cliché that we've ever come.
4 firefighters on one pump to cover a patch with a population of approximately 100000. 4 riders aren't enough to implement standard safety procedures at a house fire with persons reported, and the nearest backup pumps will be 10 minutes away, if they're available, putting the initial crew under pressure to commit BA without proper safety considerations in place. That puts us, and the public in danger, because we might not commit until a second pump arrives, or we might commit when we should have waited.
Government stats say that 80% of fatalities in domestic property fires are dead before we arrive. Looks like we've given up on the other 20% too.
0 -
An important legal case from a European court
German sex-swing enthusiast evicted from flat after noise complaints
Munich court upholds landlady's decision to boot out tenant after complaints of late-night 'athletic and squeaking' sounds
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/german-sex-swing-evicted-noises-munich?CMP=twt_gu0 -
Yes, this is a very good poll indeed for Labour - adding credibility to the two most recent YouGov/Sun daily polls and achieved somewhat surprisingly against the background of falling UKIP support, which according to conventional wisdom should primarily benefit the Tories.TheScreamingEagles said:@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 39 (+2), Con 33 (+1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 11 (-3), Oth 8 (=). Tables here: http://t.co/vrnZvVUPm7
Incidentally UKIP's 11% must be their lowest rating for yonks and should this decline continue, very much brings into play the merits of Ladbrokes' 13/8 against them winning between 5% - 10% of the UK vote at the GE.
0 -
That's a broad and inaccurate generalisation of my views on sentencing.isam said:
You're the one who doesn't think criminals should be locked up, so why shouldn't people who make ill judged comments be given a second chance too?TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html
My point was in the week a chap has been beheaded, to say Mackay and his family and have suffered like no-one else, is crass at best.0 -
Richard Scudamore: No "culture of sexism" at Premier LeagueAnorak said:
Football managers have never really left the world of Life on Mars, have they.TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html
0 -
Salmond is a liar. He lied about having legal advice about EU membership, he lies about the deficit Scotland is running and fantasises about oil wealth funds, he lies about what can be achieved by the "sovereign will of the Scottish people" which somehow overrides everybody else's sovereign will and now he is lying about the NHS, something that he is already responsible for.malcolmg said:
David , your Tory fantasies about the Scottish government and your personal hatred and constant insulting of Alex Salmond , sure says a lot about you.DavidL said:
These lies threaten to bring a disaster to Scotland. And it will be the poor that will bear the consequences, not the wealthy whose money will be safely elsewhere.
0 -
TSE = PB's Trojan Horse? Surely not!TheScreamingEagles said:
I really am worried about Muslims here.Neil said:
We havent discussed how terrible muslims are in ages!Theuniondivvie said:
The discourse on here gets more Socratic by the day.
Or do you mean something else by that?
I heard something on the news last night, that most British Jihadis, earlier in their life, were bad Muslims, who engaged in bad things like fornication, drinking and other un-Islamic things, saw the error of their ways and repented, and thus became Jihadis,
Am I a future Jihadi?
Maybe you will "leave the UK" when Ed becomes PM? (kidding!)0 -
When the subject is Scottish Independence it often feels like that!Theuniondivvie said:
If a day counts as ages..Neil said:
We havent discussed how terrible muslims are in ages!Theuniondivvie said:
The discourse on here gets more Socratic by the day.
Or do you mean something else by that?
0 -
Morning all and on thread, 4 weeks today we will know the result and thank goodness this long running campaign will be over (at least for the present). I think David is right to question the reliability of the polls. In the last couple of weeks I actually began to believe NO might win. The news I have been hearing in recent days from the large housing estate in Central Scotland once more makes me think YES will sneak it by a tiny margin. The result is going to be down to GOTV.
Incidentally I was amused to see OGH basically blaming the Tory gain from the LibDems yesterday on the fact UKIP didn't stand. Clearly it had nothing to do with the fact that the voters in that part of Broadland actually preferred what the Tory candidate was offering to that of his LibDem opponent.0 -
That was non judgemental and indiscriminate of himTheScreamingEagles said:
As one of my Scottish friend's put it to me this morning.Anorak said:
Football managers have never really left the world of Life on Mars, have they.TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html
"Why is anyone surprised that a man from South Glasgow has views that are racist, sexist and homophobic?"
0 -
Not a line I would suggest that Better Together should major on in the last few weeks of the campaign!DavidL said:
Salmond is a liar. He lied about having legal advice about EU membership, he lies about the deficit Scotland is running and fantasises about oil wealth funds, he lies about what can be achieved by the "sovereign will of the Scottish people" which somehow overrides everybody else's sovereign will and now he is lying about the NHS, something that he is already responsible for.malcolmg said:
David , your Tory fantasies about the Scottish government and your personal hatred and constant insulting of Alex Salmond , sure says a lot about you.DavidL said:
These lies threaten to bring a disaster to Scotland. And it will be the poor that will bear the consequences, not the wealthy whose money will be safely elsewhere.
0 -
Sounds like you and your mate enjoy a bit of banter.TheScreamingEagles said:
As one of my Scottish friend's put it to me this morning.Anorak said:
Football managers have never really left the world of Life on Mars, have they.TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html
"Why is anyone surprised that a man from South Glasgow has views that are racist, sexist and homophobic?"0 -
I think many people in jobs of that type would report similar experiences; I’m sure Dr Fox has met admin people who make similar statements. or demonstrate a similar attitude.HurstLlama said:
I remember a conversation with a deputy fire chief in which she said dealing with fires and rescuing people was a minor part of her brigade's job and was growing ever smaller and less and less important. She got quite sniffy when I said that the general public probably wouldn't agree with her idea of what was important. She had of course never been a fire-fighter, but she was a senior decision maker.TwistedFireStopper said:I'm a vested interest. Of course I am, I don't want to lose my job at the age of 48 or 49. The FBU use the tired old phrase "Cuts Cost Lives" too often, but genuinely, the cuts proposed in my brigade are the closest to that cliché that we've ever come.
4 firefighters on one pump to cover a patch with a population of approximately 100000. 4 riders aren't enough to implement standard safety procedures at a house fire with persons reported, and the nearest backup pumps will be 10 minutes away, if they're available, putting the initial crew under pressure to commit BA without proper safety considerations in place. That puts us, and the public in danger, because we might not commit until a second pump arrives, or we might commit when we should have waited.
Government stats say that 80% of fatalities in domestic property fires are dead before we arrive. Looks like we've given up on the other 20% too.
Having said that I was, a couple of years ago at a talk where a senior Fire Officer (firefighter) explained that a major part of their job nowadays was prevention. He asserted that it was possible, from a knowledge of the demographics (including who among the elderly population was using a particular sort of leg ulcer dressing) to identify risk and that doing this work had not only become his major duty, but was resulting in a decrease in the “fire and rescue” work.
Whether that is true or not I’m not qualified to judge and I’d be interested in advice on the matter.0 -
Cameron is having a desperate, desperate summer.
He appears oblivious.0 -
70,002nd chance, judging by reports.isam said:
You're the one who doesn't think criminals should be locked up, so why shouldn't people who make ill judged comments be given a second chance too?TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html
Though I personally think that if these were one-to-one personal communications the privacy issue is as important as their content, horrific as it may well be.
0 -
The biggest component is the increase in nominal GDP: if we assume 3% economic growth and 1.5% inflation in 2015 (not unreasonable assumptions), then we get to 'deflate' the debt by 4.5% before looking at the deficit.DavidL said:
That is the hope but it is based upon assumptions that the deficit is going to fall a lot faster than it has over the last several years. Last year the deficit fell a couple of billion off 120bn and many screamed about the cuts. This year it is supposed to fall more like 20bn but it is behind target at the moment.rcs1000 said:@DavidL
UK government debt-to-GDP will probably peak in 3Q next year. From that point on, while our debt pile will continue to grow, it will be diminishing in size relative to the economy.
As you know debt will continue to rise until the deficit is a smaller percentage of the GDP than the growth. I fear that particular crossover is going to be further delayed.
So - 91.1% (Mar 2014) becomes 87.0% before deficit. Now, if the OECD is right, and the UK runs a 4.1% deficit next year, then we get debt-to-GDP remaining a fabulously constant 91.1% - with the peak probably being in 3Q.
0 -
If we are going to reference everything to James Foleys murder then everything is good and nothing is bad. I can't imagine the whole of the weekends football is going to be viewed through that prismTheScreamingEagles said:
That's a broad and inaccurate generalisation of my views on sentencing.isam said:
You're the one who doesn't think criminals should be locked up, so why shouldn't people who make ill judged comments be given a second chance too?TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html
My point was in the week a chap has been beheaded, to say Mackay and his family and have suffered like no-one else, is crass at best.
The reasons why we have got to the point where a British man from East London is beheading an American in the name of the Islamic state while the Isis flag flies in Poplar are not really being discussed on here anyway0 -
TwistedFireStopper said:
Being caught in this situation is clearly worrying. i've been made redundant in my time.malcolmg said:
There's a good chance I'll be one of the unemployed "underclass" within a year- my station (that's STATION, not Brigade, mind) has to shed 20 out of 48 operational firefighters to meet budget cuts.Flightpath said:
Make them shovel shit for their benefits,OldKingCole said:
No one in their right minds will employ the Wayne and Waynettas of this world. Or da gangsta rappers inda 'hood.Financier said:
...malcolmg said:
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.Patrick said:
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.Smarmeron said:@Patrick
Build gas chambers for the poor?
Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane?
(Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
...
I doubt anyone will employ any of their children. How do you break the circle or do we put up with this underclass?
Will I have to shovel shit for my benefits?
However according the the Independent earlier in the year in respect of London where 12 stations are closing anjd 550 jobs going...
'The LFB said it was confident the proposed reduction in the number of firefighters could be made without compulsory redundancies, with a recruitment freeze, retirements and routine departures yielding the necessary numbers.'
'Ron Dobson, the commissioner of the LFB, said ... the past decade had seen a dramatic change in demand for the brigade's services and the time had come to reorganise its resources. According to the LFB, the number of incidents it attends has dropped by 35% in the last 10 years, while the number of fires has dropped by 51%.'
We have a massive defict - how has that arisen. One reason (at the risk of stirring a hornets nest) is over-manned and inefficiently organised public services.
The NHS (thats the NHS!) is going through a 20 billion efficiency drive - the same aplies elsewhere because as a departing labour minister said - 'the money's run out'.0 -
The situation was indeed worse than was thought. But what we all have to recognise is that we are almost certainly more than half way through this economic cycle and we have not got close to zero yet, let alone repaid any debt. If things go wrong in 3-4 years time (sooner if we have a Labour government) we will be starting from a very bad placeFlightpath said:DavidL
''The question for politicians is what is the balance to be struck between cuts in spending and increases in tax? Because the deficit must be eliminated or we all get ever poorer. The tories have given an answer of sorts, albeit it seems to involve some wishful thinking about how quickly the deficit is going to fall without radical change. From Labour I see nothing but tumbleweed. From Salmond nothing but the fantasy that this does not apply to Scotland. Such is our politics. ''
In fact the govt have a coherent plan - its not an answer 'of sorts'.. So to criticise the govt on this is wide of the mark.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002037.html#more
''By 2018-19, according to the IFS, a deficit reduction programme equivalent to 11.5% of GDP will have been achieved. Apart from in the special conditions of moving from war to peace, I do not think that has ever been done before.''
Its not an easy task because the mess inherited was worse than thought -
''in November 2011 when the OBR changed its view on the economy’s productive potential, so more of the deficit was deemed to be structural – and thus requiring tax hikes or spending cuts – and less of it cyclical, in other words disappearing with the recovery.''
0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ePIZugahFctaffys said:Cameron is having a desperate, desperate summer.
He appears oblivious.0 -
No, I am not saying we can't afford poor people and if you have got that impression from my posts then I obviously wasn't writing accurately enough, for which I apologise.Smarmeron said:@HurstLlama
The welfare bill is rising and not falling despite the "recovery" and the "jobs" it has created.
In essence, you are saying that the UK can't afford poor people, while the corporations that are paying no more tax than the preceding years demand the poor as a substitute for increased productivity through investment.
We need to all wake up and find a better way, or hope the black death arrives again so the bottom of the pile can get some improvement in their living standards.
What I strongly believe is that present arrangements are unsustainable and, in addition, they still present people with perverse incentives to adopt life-styles that are bad for them and their offspring and, ultimately for society as a whole.
I fully agree with your point that the welfare bill is rising even though the number of unemployed is falling. I made a post on here the other day about that very issue. I fully agree that corporations need to pay their fair share of tax (see post below on abolition of corporation tax and a return to a company income tax). Finally, I agree we need to find a better way than the one we have at the moment.
So as usual, we are agreed on the diagnosis, we are agreed on the goal, the argument is over the means. I suspect, whisper this, that we are not too far apart on that either but, like the Labour and Conservative parties we come from different political backgrounds and so like them we feel the need to play-up trivial differences by use of different language patterns and side issues.0 -
In the old days a war across a country destroyed wealth, manly at the top.
There does not appear to be an equivalent event in today's world, apart from naturally occurring events.0 -
Wolverhampton
Lab 9798
Con 4450
UKIP 3042
LD 627
Sandwell
Lab 14256
Con 3411
UKIP 3326
LD 946
Labour at 50.7% at the moment with only Dudley to be declared0 -
I think you are over-analysing. There doesn't seem to be any discernible trend in the Labour lead in recent weeks:peter_from_putney said:
Yes, this is a very good poll indeed for Labour - adding credibility to the two most recent YouGov/Sun daily polls and achieved somewhat surprisingly against the background of falling UKIP support, which according to conventional wisdom should primarily benefit the Tories.TheScreamingEagles said:@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 39 (+2), Con 33 (+1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 11 (-3), Oth 8 (=). Tables here: http://t.co/vrnZvVUPm7
Incidentally UKIP's 11% must be their lowest rating for yonks and should this decline continue, very much brings into play the merits of Ladbrokes' 13/8 against them winning between 5% - 10% of the UK vote at the GE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2014
Taking YouGov, for example, in August the Labour leads have been:
3 4 5 3 5 4 4 3 2 0 4 5 1 4
I can't really see any trend there: it looks like random fluctuation around the mean of between 3% and 4%.
It's true that the UKIP vote share might be slightly easing off, but it's not a big effect.
The LibDems remains stuck in the mire.0 -
That's undoubtedly true - we're excellent at FP work, so good in fact, that we're putting ourselves out of work. My point is that we are fast approaching the point where we will be unable to safely effect rescues or deal with large incidents in a timely, safe, or worthwhile way. We might have to just sit back and let buildings or areas where there's no life risk burn out.OldKingCole said:
I think many people in jobs of that type would report similar experiences; I’m sure Dr Fox has met admin people who make similar statements. or demonstrate a similar attitude.HurstLlama said:
I remember a conversation with a deputy fire chief in which she said dealing with fires and rescuing people was a minor part of her brigade's job and was growing ever smaller and less and less important. She got quite sniffy when I said that the general public probably wouldn't agree with her idea of what was important. She had of course never been a fire-fighter, but she was a senior decision maker.TwistedFireStopper said:I'm a vested interest. Of course I am, I don't want to lose my job at the age of 48 or 49. The FBU use the tired old phrase "Cuts Cost Lives" too often, but genuinely, the cuts proposed in my brigade are the closest to that cliché that we've ever come.
4 firefighters on one pump to cover a patch with a population of approximately 100000. 4 riders aren't enough to implement standard safety procedures at a house fire with persons reported, and the nearest backup pumps will be 10 minutes away, if they're available, putting the initial crew under pressure to commit BA without proper safety considerations in place. That puts us, and the public in danger, because we might not commit until a second pump arrives, or we might commit when we should have waited.
Government stats say that 80% of fatalities in domestic property fires are dead before we arrive. Looks like we've given up on the other 20% too.
Having said that I was, a couple of years ago at a talk where a senior Fire Officer (firefighter) explained that a major part of their job nowadays was prevention. He asserted that it was possible, from a knowledge of the demographics (including who among the elderly population was using a particular sort of leg ulcer dressing) to identify risk and that doing this work had not only become his major duty, but was resulting in a decrease in the “fire and rescue” work.
Whether that is true or not I’m not qualified to judge and I’d be interested in advice on the matter.
0 -
I heard on the news this morning that we might have to help the Assad regime, whilst it might be a necessary Realpolitik move it is going to kill off the (almost dead anyway) moderate Syrian opposition as they side with the IS.
Bit like siding with old Joseph in World War II I guess.0 -
They have been in other threads. But the attached blog from D Hannan today is quite interesting on this - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100283661/what-makes-some-british-muslims-fight-for-isis/.isam said:
If we are going to reference everything to James Foleys murder then everything is good and nothing is bad. I can't imagine the whole of the weekends football is going to be viewed through that prismTheScreamingEagles said:
That's a broad and inaccurate generalisation of my views on sentencing.isam said:
You're the one who doesn't think criminals should be locked up, so why shouldn't people who make ill judged comments be given a second chance too?TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html
My point was in the week a chap has been beheaded, to say Mackay and his family and have suffered like no-one else, is crass at best.
The reasons why we have got to the point where a British man from East London is beheading an American in the name of the Islamic state while the Isis flag flies in Poplar are not really being discussed on here anyway
0 -
To eradicate malaria, we do not just kill mosquitos, we need to drain the swamp.isam said:
If we are going to reference everything to James Foleys murder then everything is good and nothing is bad. I can't imagine the whole of the weekends football is going to be viewed through that prismTheScreamingEagles said:
That's a broad and inaccurate generalisation of my views on sentencing.isam said:
You're the one who doesn't think criminals should be locked up, so why shouldn't people who make ill judged comments be given a second chance too?TheScreamingEagles said:Really Harry? REALLY?
"It shouldn't finish his life should it? He's a young man with a big future, no-one's suffered like he and his family.
http://uk.soccerway.com/news/2014/August/22/redknapp-mackay-should-get-second-chance/n399353/
Malky Mackay texts: Harry Redknapp defends former Cardiff City manger - 'he hasn't raped anyone and he is not a paedophile'
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/redknapp-defends-mackay--he-hasnt-raped-anyone-and-he-is-not-a-paedophile-9685399.html
My point was in the week a chap has been beheaded, to say Mackay and his family and have suffered like no-one else, is crass at best.
The reasons why we have got to the point where a British man from East London is beheading an American in the name of the Islamic state while the Isis flag flies in Poplar are not really being discussed on here anyway
We need to address the reasons why muslim youths are attracted to Jihadi groups, and how we permit these views to be spread.
In neither answer do we need to leave the EU. Indeed many of our EU partners are addressing the same issues.0
