politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the second consecutive day YouGov’s UKIP share moves to

Sell at 10

[I wonder if GE2015 might sound the death-knell for FPTP?]

The Alternative Vote referendum may have killed some form of proportional representation for a generation.

I'm on record as stating the #indyref (in regards to Scotland, a so called nation-state, currently within the UK) would not.

EDITED - typo

EDIT 2 - not a typo, I corrected a word (for reference to fans, readers, lurkers and those with time on their hands - changed "with" to "within"

PS - I understand the Finnish idiom, translated into english (I think directly), for the type of behavior I have just displayed - is "Comma-fucker"

Okay - I need to correct my previous post a little bit.

It's the #indyref Debate (capitalization for emphasis) that has not been killed. I am not stating that an Independent Scotland (so to speak) is inevitable.

I apparently have a little bit of time on my hand.

FPT

IshmaelX (sp. ?) - was asking a question where the answer number five stood out.

He said if you can't answer that question you are stupid.

Well I admit I am about 24 hours late, and have utilized google somewhat-

However,

If this was an essay question the answer could be 5 ("Labour Value", a marxist term)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

I have used scare quotes because I may have logged yet another neologism.

Long Reign JBriskin

Off-topic:

During one of our many discussions on energy in the past, I've mentioned potential dark-knight schemes that might solve many problems. Many of these are promoted by people who might be charlatans, but one promising fusion source - a High-Beta fusion reactor - was alluded to in a single video by a Lockheed Martin Skunkworks person early last year, during a Google 'Solve for X' talk. It was important because LM are not sort of company to mention such a thing - and say it was promising - unless they were really onto something.

Well, yesterday they announced that they have made progress, and are looking for industry and governmental partners to take it forward, with a prototype within a year.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/lockheed-breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-energy?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy1/

There's a long way to go, but it has to be a better use of funds than ITER ...

If anyone missed it yesterday Betfair has 'UKIP Seats Total 2' up.

http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115908091

5 or under
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26 and over

JBriskin said:

The Alternative Vote referendum may have killed some form of proportional representation for a generation.

With hindsight - and at the time someone did mention this with foresight (RodCrosby?) - the defeat of AV will probably produce PR, whereas the success of AV would have killed it. If we'd had AV we'd have ended up with a situation more like Australia, where people vote for the smaller parties as their first choices but most of the votes end up transferring to the main parties, so the main thing people care about when the polls are reported is the two-party preference. That could have worked as a safety valve to take the pressure off the weird things FPTP does, but as it is we'll just get a bunch of utterly crazy election results until people finally get sick of it.

logical_song said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

During one of our many discussions on energy in the past, I've mentioned potential dark-knight schemes that might solve many problems. Many of these are promoted by people who might be charlatans, but one promising fusion source - a High-Beta fusion reactor - was alluded to in a single video by a Lockheed Martin Skunkworks person early last year, during a Google 'Solve for X' talk. It was important because LM are not sort of company to mention such a thing - and say it was promising - unless they were really onto something.

Well, yesterday they announced that they have made progress, and are looking for industry and governmental partners to take it forward, with a prototype within a year.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/lockheed-breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-energy?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy1/

There's a long way to go, but it has to be a better use of funds than ITER ...

If the picture is anything to go by the Lockheed Martin solution uses a 'magnetic bottle' similar to JET and ITER. If they've made advances then great, but fusion is always '10 years away'.
I think we still need renewables and methods to store the renewable energy (flow batteries etc) in the meantime.
BTW if it fits on a truck, would there be a version for a DeLorean ;-) ?

Most non-charlatan methods use variants of the 'magnetic bottle'. The point is that Skunkworks has a long and illustrious history of remarkable high-tech achievements, and Lockheed Martin would not publicise such a thing unless they were actually making progress.

They may be part of the industrial-military complex, but they're also believable.

It seems that by shrinking the size of the magnetic containment they've been able to contain the plasma in a more efficient manner. Which goes contrary to my (albeit limited) knowledge, which said that it was easier to contain if you went bigger (hence ITER). Heating the plasma with radio waves is an interesting idea.

For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor

It may come to nothing, or not be practical for many end-purposes, and so yes, we need to continue developing other areas of tech. But it's very promising.

Easterross said:

Good morning all. Have the Kippers reached 50% yet? No- yawn.

Sell at 10 worker drone

Not sure if anyone has commented on this
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/10/15/the-inside-story-of-the-labour-reshuffle-that-never-was/
In summary, Ed Milliband wanted to move Ed Balls, but couldn't after Heywood and Middleton.
I have no idea whether it is credible.

Interesting that in this YouGov poll UKIP support is at 19% for men and women. Is Carswell helping to attract female voters?

logical_song said:

To add a bit of politics, it seems that the massage guy UKIPs Roger Helmer is very much in favour of fracking. http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/lets-get-real-about-fracking/
One driver for the Green's advance may be worries about fracking and apparently it's worrying for the Tories http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10828543/Government-drive-for-fracking-losing-thousands-of-Tory-votes-Lord-Howell-warns.html
Maybe this is one of UKIPs policies that won't prove popular once it's more widely known

I'd prefer not to have to frack. But it may be the only way forward, at least for the while. Green energy - wind, wave, solar, tidal etc - cannot currently deliver the energy we need, yet alone at a price that makes us competitive.

Kara Thrace should obviously be the UKIP spokesman on energy.

Hat-tip to FrancisUrquhart for his intelligent and compassionate piece on disabled people last night, which I entirely agree with.

One issue about many mental illnesses is that they switch on and off - people can be OK some days, but depressed/scared/etc. another.

My old company Novartis in Switzerland had a scheme which I always felt reflected very well on them: long-serving staff who developed mental illness would be transferred to a budget which wasn't charged to the department cost centre. For instance, I had a secretary with chronic depression. I couldn't rely on her coming every day, but when she came (3-4 days a week) she was excellent, and she cost my budget nothing. So I put aside filing etc. for her to do when she was there, and we were both happy.

The key thing was that the budget was SECRET - talking about it was a disciplinary offence, and telling someone they were on it was a serious breach. So she felt she was a valued normal member of staff - and felt guilty about not being able to work every day, but we were able to reassure her that we thought she was so good it was OK. The company got zero benefit out of it in PR - they just felt it was the right thing to do. It was a factor in making me want to keep working for them - I never looked for a job with another company simply because I liked them for this and other reasons.

How that transfers into national policy is not so easy to work out. Freud's idea of topping up sub-minimum wages is similar but has the snags I discussed yesterday (undermining the minimum wage, basically). Probably a national basic income, as EiT suggested, is the only economically clean way to do it, but hugely expensive.

NickPalmer said:

Hat-tip to FrancisUrquhart for his intelligent and compassionate piece on disabled people last night, which I entirely agree with.

One issue about many mental illnesses is that they switch on and off - people can be OK some days, but depressed/scared/etc. another.

My old company Novartis in Switzerland had a scheme which I always felt reflected very well on them: long-serving staff who developed mental illness would be transferred to a budget which wasn't charged to the department cost centre. For instance, I had a secretary with chronic depression. I couldn't rely on her coming every day, but when she came (3-4 days a week) she was excellent, and she cost my budget nothing. So I put aside filing etc. for her to do when she was there, and we were both happy.

The key thing was that the budget was SECRET - talking about it was a disciplinary offence, and telling someone they were on it was a serious breach. So she felt she was a valued normal member of staff - and felt guilty about not being able to work every day, but we were able to reassure her that we thought she was so good it was OK. The company got zero benefit out of it in PR - they just felt it was the right thing to do. It was a factor in making me want to keep working for them - I never looked for a job with another company simply because I liked them for this and other reasons.

How that transfers into national policy is not so easy to work out. Freud's idea of topping up sub-minimum wages is similar but has the snags I discussed yesterday (undermining the minimum wage, basically). Probably a national basic income, as EiT suggested, is the only economically clean way to do it, but hugely expensive.

"So I put aside filing etc. for her to do when she was there, and we were both happy."

Budgets lol

Fat_Steve said:

Not sure if anyone has commented on this
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/10/15/the-inside-story-of-the-labour-reshuffle-that-never-was/
In summary, Ed Milliband wanted to move Ed Balls, but couldn't after Heywood and Middleton.
I have no idea whether it is credible.

The way the chancellor/shadow chancellor role seems to have become some sort of sacred cow over the last 20 years is bizarre. Future party leaders need to avoid appointing egotists. It should be as open to reshuffle as any other role.

Not sure why Heywood changed any game though.

What is this "UKIP" that one or two people seem to be referring to?

Swiss_Bob said:

JosiasJessop said:

Swiss_Bob said:

Rossi's much derided e-cat has been tested again and according to those doing the testing produced an extraordinary amount of power.

Some have suggested that this might be related to some of the oil price drop.

Rossi is doing little to make himself appear other than a charlatan. Such grand claims need to be thoroughly independently tested.

For people who want to know more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

I wouldn't have mentioned it but for this recent news:

Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat — the device that purports to use cold fusion to generate massive amounts of cheap, green energy – has been verified by third-party researchers, according to a new 54-page report. The researchers observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours, or “far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume.” The researchers were also allowed to analyze the fuel before and after the 32-day run, noting that the isotopes in the spent fuel could only have been obtained by “nuclear reactions” — a conclusion that boggles the researchers: “… It is of course very hard to comprehend how these fusion processes can take place in the fuel compound at low energies.”

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

Thanks, I hadn't seen that.

But note:

The researchers are very careful about not actually saying that cold fusion/LENR is the source of the E-Cat’s energy, instead merely saying that an “unknown reaction” is at work. In serious scientific circles, LENR is still a bit of a joke/taboo topic. The paper is actually somewhat comical in this regard: The researchers really try to work out how the E-Cat produces so much darn energy — and they conclude that fusion is the only answer — but then they reel it all back in by adding: “The reaction speculation above should only be considered as an example of reasoning and not a serious conjecture.”

Rossi's past actions have been more akin to a snake-oil salesman than a scientist. In science, grand claims require grand proofs, and he has been hesitant to allow anything like sufficient independent verification.

In this, he's very much like the late Maurice Ward with his 'Starlite' heat-absorbing gel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite.

But he might be genuine, as I believe Ward was with Starlight. But I'm very sceptical.

[(and the first rule of mental health club is that you don't talk about mental health club)]

The exact opposite of professional and mainstream media advice.

Financier said:

Monksfield said:

Fat_Steve said:

Not sure if anyone has commented on this
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/10/15/the-inside-story-of-the-labour-reshuffle-that-never-was/
In summary, Ed Milliband wanted to move Ed Balls, but couldn't after Heywood and Middleton.
I have no idea whether it is credible.

The way the chancellor/shadow chancellor role seems to have become some sort of sacred cow over the last 20 years is bizarre. Future party leaders need to avoid appointing egotists. It should be as open to reshuffle as any other role.

Not sure why Heywood changed any game though.

Problem for EdM and Labour is that whilst Ed Balls has been wrong most of the time, he has nobody else who has a clue about how to improve the economy - a front bench bereft of ideas and doable solutions.

At what point did Team PB call PMQ's a win for Ed M?

Asking for a friend.

Financier said:

YouGov changed its methodology on August 27th in order to reflect UKIP more accurately.

How so? Do they include UKIP in their prompt now?

Re the labour market stats.

During the last four years there has been a 23% increase in employment among those born overseas while only a 2% increase in employment of UK born people.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=JF6F&dataset=lms&table-id=08

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=JF6G&dataset=lms&table-id=08

Understand this and you will understand why real wages are falling, productivity stagnating, inequality rising and government borrowing remaining over £100bn each year.

The UK labour market is analogous to having an air conditioning unit working next to an open window. The harder it works the more it will suck in fresh people from outside. Added to this, having a welfare state with free health and education also acts as an incentive for low skilled immigration.

Now what happens when the UK next has a recession ?

JosiasJessop said:

logical_song said:

To add a bit of politics, it seems that the massage guy UKIPs Roger Helmer is very much in favour of fracking. http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/lets-get-real-about-fracking/
One driver for the Green's advance may be worries about fracking and apparently it's worrying for the Tories http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10828543/Government-drive-for-fracking-losing-thousands-of-Tory-votes-Lord-Howell-warns.html
Maybe this is one of UKIPs policies that won't prove popular once it's more widely known

I'd prefer not to have to frack. But it may be the only way forward, at least for the while. Green energy - wind, wave, solar, tidal etc - cannot currently deliver the energy we need, yet alone at a price that makes us competitive.

Amen to that.

Socrates said:

JBriskin said:

Socrates said:

Also, the free hit here is for HMG to insist that free movement only refers to labour. Unemployed beggars shouldn't be able to come here without a job. We can clearly demand that back without breaching one of the four freedoms, so it's a no-brainer.

Isn't it the workers who depress the wages?

Yes, which is why that also needs limits, but limiting non-workers doesn't mean you need to take more workers. And non-workers have lots of issues, if you just look at the rampant increase in the begging population in London, often littering and going to the bathroom in public parks. It's disgusting, and no sensible policy would allow these people in.

Yes, okay - I admit to thinking in ratios somewhat because of my [mainstream card game] playing

Re: Disability Working.

There was a very interesting interview at ~6.30am on ITV's Good Morning with the father of a disabled son in his 30s. Currently this son does 1 day a week of voluntary work plus college which will come to an end soon. His son's problem is that his attention span is about 30 minutes, is forgetful and tires easily.

The possibility of stocking supermarket shelves was aired and the father felt that his son would require a lot of supervision which he acknowledged would be an extra cost to the employer. Also he said that his son would be delighted to be able to work about 25 hours a week for £50 as it would give him a purpose in life.

Whilst Lord Freud may have used his words incorrectly, he felt that Lord Freud had identified a true problem, where disabled people who require greater supervision than normal should not fall under the minimum wage trap but be paid a small wage, when the really important matter was to give these people a new purpose, incentive and direction in lifestyle and not feel useless.

I believe that Remploy used to 'employ' a lot of such people, but read that some of their factories have closed - perhaps a rethink required.

As an aside, we had a graduate intern for the summer 3 months who did his M.Sc dissertation with us. Whilst we paid for his living expenses (but not beer money), we estimate that our lost consultancy time due to having to supervise him was a 35% of his time here - so about one month for which our lost consultancy income was about £20,000.

[Currently this son does 1 day a week of voluntary work plus college which will come to an end soon]

DISOWNED

Financier said:

Re: Disability Working.

There was a very interesting interview at ~6.30am on ITV's Good Morning with the father of a disabled son in his 30s. Currently this son does 1 day a week of voluntary work plus college which will come to an end soon. His son's problem is that his attention span is about 30 minutes, is forgetful and tires easily.

The possibility of stocking supermarket shelves was aired and the father felt that his son would require a lot of supervision which he acknowledged would be an extra cost to the employer. Also he said that his son would be delighted to be able to work about 25 hours a week for £50 as it would give him a purpose in life.

Whilst Lord Freud may have used his words incorrectly, he felt that Lord Freud had identified a true problem, where disabled people who require greater supervision than normal should not fall under the minimum wage trap but be paid a small wage, when the really important matter was to give these people a new purpose, incentive and direction in lifestyle and not feel useless.

I believe that Remploy used to 'employ' a lot of such people, but read that some of their factories have closed - perhaps a rethink required.

As an aside, we had a graduate intern for the summer 3 months who did his M.Sc dissertation with us. Whilst we paid for his living expenses (but not beer money), we estimate that our lost consultancy time due to having to supervise him was a 35% of his time here - so about one month for which our lost consultancy income was about £20,000.

As he acknowledged himself, Lord Freud's mistake was to tie this to the minimum wage in the first place. It's an unrelated issue.

anotherDave said:

Financier said:

YouGov changed its methodology on August 27th in order to reflect UKIP more accurately.

How so? Do they include UKIP in their prompt now?

Peter Kellner wrote an article on this change if you look back at the YG archive. As UKIP is in the 2010 VI figures, they must prompt for it but check the YG archive.

SouthamObserver said:

Socrates said:

NickPalmer said:

Back on topic, YG used to be less favourable to UKIP than other posters for some reason, so it's impressive to see them on 19% here. Arguably what's driving it is the half-arsed attempts by other parties to be a little bit kipper - briefing the press that one's quite inclined to try to negotiate less free movement or one's really very keen to enforce the rules more strictly. Kipper-leaning voters notch up the salience of the Kipper issues a bit more but dismiss the pandering as insincere. Like the Tories attacking Labour on the NHS or Labour complaining about Tory defence cuts, it just doesn't work as switchers don't give the parties enough basic credibility on another party's natural issue.

With respect Nick, I think this is just what leftists say because they have views at odds with the rest of the electorate, and they don't want the political spectrum moving to where public opinion is. What gets people moving to UKIP is when UKIP activists can say on the door step "The big parties will do nothing about immigration, nothing about the EU and nothing about an English parliament". You're right that insincerity gets you nowhere, but the answer to that isn't to stop talking about those issues, but to propose policies that would actually make a difference. Saying "we hear your concerns about immigration, but we're going to keep immigration running at the same levels" is what pisses people off.

I agree. What is driving UKIP poll scores is a belief that the other parties are not listening and/or do not care. Full stop. That's why Dave's new move on EU immigration is unlikely to bear much fruit. If he really meant it, why wait until a few months before a GE to start talking about it? He has had four and a half years. The only thing that has changed - the only emergency, if you like - is that UKIP is the biggest obstacle to him staying in power and he feels he has to do something about it.

Quite so, Cameron just seems to be a natural last minuter. He postures, then he cracks.

logical_song said:

OldKingCole said:

JosiasJessop said:

logical_song said:

To add a bit of politics, it seems that the massage guy UKIPs Roger Helmer is very much in favour of fracking. http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/lets-get-real-about-fracking/
One driver for the Green's advance may be worries about fracking and apparently it's worrying for the Tories http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10828543/Government-drive-for-fracking-losing-thousands-of-Tory-votes-Lord-Howell-warns.html
Maybe this is one of UKIPs policies that won't prove popular once it's more widely known

I'd prefer not to have to frack. But it may be the only way forward, at least for the while. Green energy - wind, wave, solar, tidal etc - cannot currently deliver the energy we need, yet alone at a price that makes us competitive.

Amen to that.

http://www.worldwatch.org/renewables-becoming-cost-competitive-fossil-fuels-us
Of course oil is getting cheaper at the moment. Surely we need to factor in the political and financial risks of being dependant on Russia and the Middle East for some of our energy needs. Climate change will also cost us and cause us problems.

It's fine to say we must factor in the political and financial risks of fossil fuels. But if you do say that, then you must also factor in the political and financial risks of green energy.

Since we in the UK cannot generate enough non-nuclear green energy to meet demand in even the best circumstances using current tech, 100% green energy would mean dropping demand significantly. The political and financial risks of that are obvious.

Financier said:

SouthamObserver said:

Financier said:

Re: Disability Working.

There was a very interesting interview at ~6.30am on ITV's Good Morning with the father of a disabled son in his 30s. Currently this son does 1 day a week of voluntary work plus college which will come to an end soon. His son's problem is that his attention span is about 30 minutes, is forgetful and tires easily.

The possibility of stocking supermarket shelves was aired and the father felt that his son would require a lot of supervision which he acknowledged would be an extra cost to the employer. Also he said that his son would be delighted to be able to work about 25 hours a week for £50 as it would give him a purpose in life.

Whilst Lord Freud may have used his words incorrectly, he felt that Lord Freud had identified a true problem, where disabled people who require greater supervision than normal should not fall under the minimum wage trap but be paid a small wage, when the really important matter was to give these people a new purpose, incentive and direction in lifestyle and not feel useless.

I believe that Remploy used to 'employ' a lot of such people, but read that some of their factories have closed - perhaps a rethink required.

As an aside, we had a graduate intern for the summer 3 months who did his M.Sc dissertation with us. Whilst we paid for his living expenses (but not beer money), we estimate that our lost consultancy time due to having to supervise him was a 35% of his time here - so about one month for which our lost consultancy income was about £20,000.

As he acknowledged himself, Lord Freud's mistake was to tie this to the minimum wage in the first place. It's an unrelated issue.

But is there a legal issue at present regarding payment below the minimum wage?

Our IT guy has a physical disability but there is nothing wrong with his brain. So we give him the use of one of our pool cars (including fuel) and a mobile phone - that is his requested method of payment for the odd days a month he helps us out.

Is this a joke?

Are you third sector in some way Mr Financier?

Financier said:

anotherDave said:

Financier said:

YouGov changed its methodology on August 27th in order to reflect UKIP more accurately.

How so? Do they include UKIP in their prompt now?

Peter Kellner wrote an article on this change if you look back at the YG archive. As UKIP is in the 2010 VI figures, they must prompt for it but check the YG archive.

They changed their weighting.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/27/update-labour-lead-4/

They still don't include UKIP in their prompt.

http://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/methodology/

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Socrates said:

NickPalmer said:

Back on topic, YG used to be less favourable to UKIP than other posters for some reason, so it's impressive to see them on 19% here. Arguably what's driving it is the half-arsed attempts by other parties to be a little bit kipper - briefing the press that one's quite inclined to try to negotiate less free movement or one's really very keen to enforce the rules more strictly. Kipper-leaning voters notch up the salience of the Kipper issues a bit more but dismiss the pandering as insincere. Like the Tories attacking Labour on the NHS or Labour complaining about Tory defence cuts, it just doesn't work as switchers don't give the parties enough basic credibility on another party's natural issue.

With respect Nick, I think this is just what leftists say because they have views at odds with the rest of the electorate, and they don't want the political spectrum moving to where public opinion is. What gets people moving to UKIP is when UKIP activists can say on the door step "The big parties will do nothing about immigration, nothing about the EU and nothing about an English parliament". You're right that insincerity gets you nowhere, but the answer to that isn't to stop talking about those issues, but to propose policies that would actually make a difference. Saying "we hear your concerns about immigration, but we're going to keep immigration running at the same levels" is what pisses people off.

I agree. What is driving UKIP poll scores is a belief that the other parties are not listening and/or do not care. Full stop. That's why Dave's new move on EU immigration is unlikely to bear much fruit. If he really meant it, why wait until a few months before a GE to start talking about it? He has had four and a half years. The only thing that has changed - the only emergency, if you like - is that UKIP is the biggest obstacle to him staying in power and he feels he has to do something about it.

I've long lost any sense of affinity or trust in Cameron at this point, as I suspect most Conservative-UKIP movers have. That's why if I'm going to be won back, I need pretty concrete, wriggle-free commitments: specific mechanisms for reducing immigration, specific demands for repatriation, specific actions to improve civil liberties. Cameron is at last starting to get this, judging by this morning's announcement. But we need more detail.

[Cameron is at last starting to get this, judging by this morning's announcement]

Source and link please.

NickPalmer said:

Hat-tip to FrancisUrquhart for his intelligent and compassionate piece on disabled people last night, which I entirely agree with.

One issue about many mental illnesses is that they switch on and off - people can be OK some days, but depressed/scared/etc. another.

My old company Novartis in Switzerland had a scheme which I always felt reflected very well on them: long-serving staff who developed mental illness would be transferred to a budget which wasn't charged to the department cost centre. For instance, I had a secretary with chronic depression. I couldn't rely on her coming every day, but when she came (3-4 days a week) she was excellent, and she cost my budget nothing. So I put aside filing etc. for her to do when she was there, and we were both happy.

The key thing was that the budget was SECRET - talking about it was a disciplinary offence, and telling someone they were on it was a serious breach. So she felt she was a valued normal member of staff - and felt guilty about not being able to work every day, but we were able to reassure her that we thought she was so good it was OK. The company got zero benefit out of it in PR - they just felt it was the right thing to do. It was a factor in making me want to keep working for them - I never looked for a job with another company simply because I liked them for this and other reasons.

How that transfers into national policy is not so easy to work out. Freud's idea of topping up sub-minimum wages is similar but has the snags I discussed yesterday (undermining the minimum wage, basically). Probably a national basic income, as EiT suggested, is the only economically clean way to do it, but hugely expensive.

Not convinced by that, Nick.

1 - Management are making determinations about peopIe's mentaI heaIth without teIIing them.
2 - I'm not sure how you keep it secret from someone in this age of Subject Access Requests under Data Protection Iaw.
3 - I suspect that Unions wouId have kittens about companies making secret judgements behind cIosed doors, and start sIinging mud as per.

The two huge probIems as I see it with minimum wage is the effect on youth empIoyment. If the Govt are going to mandate that peopIe with no experience be paid the same as peopIe with 3-4 years' experience what wiII happen? Or rather, what did happen ... a reported by the Iow Pay Unit:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288841/The_National_Minimum_Wage_LPC_Report_2014.pdf

The other is that disabIed peopIe capabIe of some work but who cannot justify a fuII wage are Ieft vegetating in front of Jeremy KyIe rather than being abIe to take aprt in society.

I think it refIects terribIy on MiIiband that he chose to sIing mud rather than engage in a debate.

Alistair said:

JosiasJessop said:

In this, he's very much like the late Maurice Ward with his 'Starlite' heat-absorbing gel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite.

But he might be genuine, as I believe Ward was with Starlight. But I'm very sceptical.

Starlite was an actual real thing that had live independent unfakeble tests - like the mentioned bunsen burner on an egg. The question was the practicality of the manufacturing process which Ward never revealed. His paranoia that his idea would be stolen if he patented it banjoed any ability for it to be applied usefully.

You are right - I was being unfair to Ward. He did allow independent tests (one set of tests was done at the AWE at Aldermaston, who should have known what they were doing). I meant to say his desire to hold his cards close to his chest was similar to Rossi. Ward was an interesting character, and wanted far too much for his invention - unless he knew something the rest of us did not that made it more valuable.

My problem with Rossi's e-Cat is this: if I was a clever man wanting to perpetuate a fraud, I would do exactly what he is doing. Until he gets reputable teams to do proper independent and repeatable tests, I'm remaining highly sceptical.

Bah.

2 "sIing mud"s in one post. Cue to cunning Iinguist poIice...

OT

More child sexual exploitation scandals like the one that happened in Rotherham will be uncovered in the coming months, a police chief has said.

Norfolk Chief Constable Simon Bailey told the Guardian that child sex crimes had "for too long been hidden".

He also said teachers and doctors should do more to spot signs of abuse.

At least 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham from 1997 to 2013, mainly by gangs of men of Pakistani heritage.

Mr Bailey, the leading officer within the Association of Chief Police Officers concerned with the issue of child abuse, has warned that the scale of the problem nationwide could be larger than previously thought.

"We don't know for sure. But I think it's tens of thousands of victims [a year] of an appalling crime," Mr Bailey said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29639374

TOPPING said:

JBriskin said:

Financier said:

OT

As detached from reality as many politicians.

Robbie Savage said, " To be completely honest, during my 20-year playing career, I never once thought about how much it was costing fans to go to games.

Other players might have been different, but I did not meet any.

I never discussed the issue with any of my team-mates at any of my clubs and, whoever I was playing for, ticket prices did not cross my mind once, let alone how much the pies or the programme were.

I cannot imagine things have changed much in the last few years.

The truth is that most Premier League players live in a bubble. If you ask most of them what a ticket costs, they would not have a clue."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29638128

Is this footballer on twitter? I understand he has been on Strictly.

As an aside, Bbc had a lot of - to put it bluntly - very crappy numbers relating to the cost of/for football fans last evening.

What is the complaint? There are waiting lists at the top clubs for tickets aren't there? I see adverts for cheap West Ham tickets in the local papers all the time.

We have some degree of market efficiency here, what is the proposal to do to change it?

My point is that Financier's best OT post's relate to oil prices and forex.

Financier said:

OT

More child sexual exploitation scandals like the one that happened in Rotherham will be uncovered in the coming months, a police chief has said.

Norfolk Chief Constable Simon Bailey told the Guardian that child sex crimes had "for too long been hidden".

He also said teachers and doctors should do more to spot signs of abuse.

At least 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham from 1997 to 2013, mainly by gangs of men of Pakistani heritage.

Mr Bailey, the leading officer within the Association of Chief Police Officers concerned with the issue of child abuse, has warned that the scale of the problem nationwide could be larger than previously thought.

"We don't know for sure. But I think it's tens of thousands of victims [a year] of an appalling crime," Mr Bailey said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29639374

You could have at least quoted from the 'original' source, the Beeboid's news bible Guardian Front Page, Main Story.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/15/rotherham-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-tip-iceberg-police-chief

I see that The Guardian has very wisely limited the comments to zero. One for he cage rattlers.

I also note that this story was given more room than the crap over Freud's remarks, so there is something for the lefty outraged types to complain about.

Good morning, everyone.

A strange sort of hiatus. Nothing happens for a few weeks, then we have three races in the first three weeks or so of November, the attempt to land on the comet, the Rochester by-election, and, of course, Dragon Age: Inquisition (apparently they're releasing Shadow of Mordor on the same day, which seems a bit stupid for both games, but there we are).

They say you're getting older when you think the police look young.

I must be getting very old because the politicians seem to be getting ever more childish. A manufactured outbreak of hyperbolic outrage at someone I'd never heard of who used somewhat clumsy phrasing when speaking off the cuff.

This is what concentrates the minds of our elected representatives when we have carnage in the middle east, an ebola epidemic in Africa and a deficit of £100 billion.

Is EdM worth £2 an hour? Probably not, but it's a minor point.

TOPPING said:

Smarmeron said:

@TOPPING
If a 25 year old turns up at an interview along with an equally qualified 63 year old, who will the employers be most likely to hire? Or should the 63 year old be able to offer them their services at below minimum wage?
The principles are the same are they not?

To do what job? Chief Accountant at Saga Holidays?

It is or should be all about ability to do the job. What (dear God I hope) Freud was saying is that in the PersonA/PersonB scenario, the state levels the playing field. The employer pays for and gets £6.50/hr worth of value from Person A and pays for and gets, say, £2/hr worth of value from Person B with the State topping up Person B's wages so that Person B makes £6.50/hr in wages also.

I'm sure that model is fraught with flaws but that seems to be the gist of what Freud was saying, wasn't it?

That was how I understood it. In the context of a question about disabled who knew they might only be doing £2 per hour of worth yet still wanted to work - but the Minimum Wage was preventing them offering themselves at their true value.

Do Labour REALLY think there was a vicious intent behind what was being discussed?

Did anyone see the report on the work Michael Lyons is doing for Miliband on housing.

Seems:

- they want the government to get into the commercial property loan market to support small builders
- new builds will only be allowed to be sold to first time buyers for the first 2 months after completion (doesn't say anything about off-plan)
- there will be no rental covenants in new build properties as part of planning permission

This guy really does like to get stuck into the detail. But that's a long list of intereferences that is going to make building new houses hugely unattractive

(FWIW, I don't really do BTL because I don't like the return profile. I do have an interest in one block that is rented out, but that was bought as part of a change of use investment)

Mr. Mark, some say Ed Miliband is an opportunistic little shit.

@Morris_Dancer
Some say David Cameron is a two faced PR man who spins whichever way the wind blows?
Are you making a point or just "chumming" with other posters who you think share your world view?