politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big difference between the UNITE and Lord Ascroft Halla

Richard_Nabavi said:

Neil said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The LibDem announcements today on tax and spending are quite interesting:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/danny-alexander-balancing-the-books-investing-in-key-public-services

A couple of observations, which I think should influence one's view on how the LibDems might jump in any post-election haggling:

- Danny has won the battle over Vince.

Are you kidding? They seem to be going for something close to a 50:50 balance between spending cuts / tax rises in closing the fiscal deficit. That seems to be closer to Vince's thinking than Danny's (it might even be to the left of whatever Labour finally offer).

Isn't it just £8bn of additional tax compared with Osborne, i.e. peanuts? (I'm ignoring the £6bn clampdown on tax avoidance/evasion, because every man and his dog says that).

It's a bigger difference than we will see between Labour and Tories (and it's much closer to Labour). You might call this peanuts but then we are fighting a peanut election because that's about as far apart as the three main parties will be on fiscal issues. If you are looking for a radical alternative you can always vote Green

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

Previously, the boy got sent home for bringing The Big Book of Knowledge to school. It contained a picture of a topless woman.

I'd have thought knowing what a topless woman looks like is an important part of a boy's education

I think it's a school that disapproves of knowledge.

michaelcollins10 said:

Anorak said:

AndyJS said:

Thought-provoking article by Allison Pearson:

..

The issue I have with articles such as this is that they are deliberately (and unnecessarily) misleading.

For example on FGM she correctly reports the number of cases reported (which is horrific) but fails to mention that overwhelmingly these crimes were committed overseas, often many years ago. Massive effort are being made in communities up and down the UK to stop young girls being taken abroad for cutting - these efforts are led by women within those communities.

Similarly on Rotherham, the Casey report (which I've read) finds other issues apart from the ethnicity of the perpetrators to be important as well, not least the bullying attitude of senior Cllrs and the widespread misogyny. The girls involved were regarded are partly to blame, regrettably this victim blaming continues and is not restricted to any community.

Finally on the slaughterhouse issue she appears to complain that the actions of the slaughtermen is tolerated, but then mentions that criminal prosecutions are likely. She can't have it both ways.

By all means write a polemic, and there is plenty to be angry about, but at least allow your argument to have some rational base.

(No comment on Tower Hamlets, politics in East London has been like that for generations regardless of the ethnicity of those involved....)

Two points by way of riposte:-

1. FGM came here because we let in people from cultures where this was widespread and did the square root of sod all to make it clear that this must not happen here. On the contrary, we explicitly said that all cultures were equally valid and it was quite unfair/racist/Western imperialist/whatever to suggest that this is not - or might not be - the case. The same could be said in relation to honour killings/forced marriages etc. The stupidity of allowing such people into the country coupled with the limp-wristed refusal to be judgmental when judgment was needed is what is being criticised.

2. Tower Hamlets is an example of community politics of a virulent kind. We cannot allow our democracy to be degraded in this way. A worrying aspect (and one which she does not touch on) is the well-documented links between the Mayor and the Islamic Forum for Europe, an extremist organisation with links to groups in Bangladesh accused of terrorism. That is a toxic mix and the infiltration of schools/local councils etc of those with an extremist agenda facilitated by the presence of communities living here as if they were still in their vastly different countries of origin is one which should worry us all.

There are commonalities here and one commonality is a refusal by the authorities to join the dots.

Neil said:

It's a bigger difference than we will see between Labour and Tories (and it's much closer to Labour). You might call this peanuts but then we are fighting a peanut election because that's about as far apart as the three main parties will be on fiscal issues. If you are looking for a radical alternative you can always vote Green

Well, if anyone was able to give a vaguely coherent indication of what Labour actually plans, you might be right. All we have had is a long list of spending commitments and a couple of symbolic tax increases which would raise less than peanuts, plus a statement that they'll deal with the deficit even more slowly than the coalition parties propose.

Of course, it's certainly the case that Labour supporters expecting them to be able to prevent 'the cuts' are living in cloud-cuckoo-land, and will be severely disappointed.

Alistair said:

SNP 6-1 is priced the same as Labour 7-0

shadsy has persuaded me to open my wallet and I've put a small bet on both 4-3 options. I don't see why they're so long priced.

antifrank said:

Alistair said:

SNP 6-1 is priced the same as Labour 7-0

shadsy has persuaded me to open my wallet and I've put a small bet on both 4-3 options. I don't see why they're so long priced.

4-3 ? 6-1

What market is this ?

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

Alistair said:

SNP 6-1 is priced the same as Labour 7-0

shadsy has persuaded me to open my wallet and I've put a small bet on both 4-3 options. I don't see why they're so long priced.

4-3 ? 6-1

What market is this ?

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/563323843591565312

Shucks, thought I was about to make the quickest £5k of my life there.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Neil said:

It's a bigger difference than we will see between Labour and Tories (and it's much closer to Labour). You might call this peanuts but then we are fighting a peanut election because that's about as far apart as the three main parties will be on fiscal issues. If you are looking for a radical alternative you can always vote Green

Well, if anyone was able to give a vaguely coherent indication of what Labour actually plans, you might be right. All we have had is a long list of spending commitments and a couple of symbolic tax increases which would raise less than peanuts, plus a statement that they'll deal with the deficit even more slowly than the coalition parties propose.

We know what their fiscal targets are and what the current position is. There are some gaps such as the share of spending cuts / tax rises but overall we can compare what they currently intend to do with the Tory and Lib Dem plans and they are not hugely different.

In the last couple of hours another £1,000 pledged to the Green party full slate fundraiser. 2 more candidates on ballot papers.

Pentagon: Putin has Asperger's Syndrome.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11392680/Vladimir-Putin-suffers-from-Aspergers-syndrome-Pentagon-report-claims.html

Neil said:

In the last couple of hours another £1,000 pledged to the Green party full slate fundraiser. 2 more candidates on ballot papers.

I think I might start a "Labour but not Ed Miliband Party" and see if I can't raise £316k.

Neil said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Neil said:

It's a bigger difference than we will see between Labour and Tories (and it's much closer to Labour). You might call this peanuts but then we are fighting a peanut election because that's about as far apart as the three main parties will be on fiscal issues. If you are looking for a radical alternative you can always vote Green

Well, if anyone was able to give a vaguely coherent indication of what Labour actually plans, you might be right. All we have had is a long list of spending commitments and a couple of symbolic tax increases which would raise less than peanuts, plus a statement that they'll deal with the deficit even more slowly than the coalition parties propose.

We know what their fiscal targets are and what the current position is. There are some gaps such as the share of spending cuts / tax rises but overall we can compare what they currently intend to do with the Tory and Lib Dem plans and they are not hugely different.

No, they are trying the same trick as Brown and Darling did last time - claiming a headline figure for deficit reduction, without the faintest indication of how they might achieve it. Indeed their main commitments have been measures to increase the deficit. Any fool can say 'We'll cut the deficit': the important question is: what would they actually do?

Maybe this will all be made clear between now and the election, but I'm not holding my breath.

Richard_Nabavi said:

No, they are trying the same trick as Brown and Darling did last time - claiming a headline figure for deficit reduction, without the faintest indication of how they might achieve it. Indeed their main commitments have been measures to increase the deficit. Any fool can say 'We'll cut the deficit': the important question is: what would they actually do?

Maybe this will all be made clear between now and the election, but I'm not holding my breath.

Presumably we can look forward for the next 5 years to charts showing how Osborne is "doing worse than Balls promised"?

Tissue_Price said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

No, they are trying the same trick as Brown and Darling did last time - claiming a headline figure for deficit reduction, without the faintest indication of how they might achieve it. Indeed their main commitments have been measures to increase the deficit. Any fool can say 'We'll cut the deficit': the important question is: what would they actually do?

Maybe this will all be made clear between now and the election, but I'm not holding my breath.

Presumably we can look forward for the next 5 years to charts showing how Osborne is "doing worse than Balls promised"?

I hope so, since the alternative is not going to be palatable!

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

Alistair said:

SNP 6-1 is priced the same as Labour 7-0

shadsy has persuaded me to open my wallet and I've put a small bet on both 4-3 options. I don't see why they're so long priced.

4-3 ? 6-1

What market is this ?

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/563323843591565312

Is this a market anyone other than geeks and anoraks will notice though ?

£15 on both for me - market suspended.

I haven't got my money on yet!

Yours and antifranks accounts are probably flaged as sharp and they auto suspend markets you both bet on regardless of the amount.

OT

Words fail me!!

"Non-recyclable waste collected from homes and businesses in Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire is to be sent overseas.

Ceredigion council said the move will save both authorities £350,000 a year and create 11 jobs on Pembroke Dock.

The rubbish will be exported to Sweden where it will be used at a power station to generate heat and electricity.

It will be processed at sites at Pembroke Port and Lampeter to remove recyclables before being shipped."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-31137556

Why not burn it here and generate power and heat?

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/next-government

Unfortunately Corals "Any other Government" is actually "Any other majority" for which 1000-1 is too skinny.

I was hoping they'd say "Any other government" ><

So close.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Neil said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Neil said:

It's a bigger difference than we will see between Labour and Tories (and it's much closer to Labour). You might call this peanuts but then we are fighting a peanut election because that's about as far apart as the three main parties will be on fiscal issues. If you are looking for a radical alternative you can always vote Green

Well, if anyone was able to give a vaguely coherent indication of what Labour actually plans, you might be right. All we have had is a long list of spending commitments and a couple of symbolic tax increases which would raise less than peanuts, plus a statement that they'll deal with the deficit even more slowly than the coalition parties propose.

We know what their fiscal targets are and what the current position is. There are some gaps such as the share of spending cuts / tax rises but overall we can compare what they currently intend to do with the Tory and Lib Dem plans and they are not hugely different.

No, they are trying the same trick as Brown and Darling did last time - claiming a headline figure for deficit reduction, without the faintest indication of how they might achieve it. Indeed their main commitments have been measures to increase the deficit. Any fool can say 'We'll cut the deficit': the important question is: what would they actually do?

Maybe this will all be made clear between now and the election, but I'm not holding my breath.

Think of their plans like this: very similar to the Tory plans to follow the last Labour government's spending plans but with some slight tweaks (similar to the Tory's "sharing the proceeds of growth" plans but in the other direction).

I know you think that Labour are uniquely deceptive and the Tories uniquely open but they're not really. They're the same as each other.

To give you an idea, Shadsy is 1-2 SNP, 13-8 Lib Dems in his 3 way market with UKIP right now.

7-1 on a straight match bet is crackers

antifrank said:

@Pulpstar FPT I'm not too confident about winning on that particular bet...

Well it was only a pound a point, I've become a bit bolder since then...

AndyJS said:

Pentagon: Putin has Asperger's Syndrome.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11392680/Vladimir-Putin-suffers-from-Aspergers-syndrome-Pentagon-report-claims.html

And what about FalseFlag?

From the poll, doubt SNP will gain Glasgow NE,

And East, North, South look safe enough SNP to me

SW and NW could both be tight

Central probably stays SNP whatever the weather but if Labour put in enough work isn't outside reach.

One for Nighthawks:

Surgeons amputate Royal Marine's leg, Liverpool FC tattoo now reads 'You'll never walk' http://dailym.ai/1v1fQro

Richard_Nabavi said:

Neil said:

Think of their plans like this: very similar to the Tory plans to follow the last Labour government's spending plans but with some slight tweaks (similar to the Tory's "sharing the proceeds of growth" plans but in the other direction).

I know you think that Labour are uniquely deceptive and the Tories uniquely open but they're not really. They're the same as each other.

But the example you give is completely different. Yes, prior to the crisis, the Conservatives were proposing only a gradual shift away from Labour's plans: they made that clear.

That's completely different from the current position, where Labour (on some days of the week at least) are claiming that the Tory plans amount to idelogically motivated, unnecessary and draconian cuts which would devastate public services, whilst in their headline figures apparently proposing to do much the same, and in their specific policy announcements going in the opposite direction to their headline figures.

You seem to totally understand politics when the Tories do it and then react in total disbelief and confusion when Labour do it. I dont know how I can help you with this selectivity but all will reveal itself (or not) after May.

antifrank said:

Pulpstar said:

From the poll, doubt SNP will gain Glasgow NE,

And East, North, South look safe enough SNP to me

SW and NW could both be tight

Central probably stays SNP whatever the weather but if Labour put in enough work isn't outside reach.

Bear in mind that the polls may well understate the SNP's position, because it was compiled by reference to respondents' recall of their vote in 2010 (some respondents will be confused by the 2011 election, where far more voters opted for the SNP).

But that looks like an accurate enough summary of the way in which the seats might swing back to Labour.

Thanks,

I'll let my big fat Cumbernauld bet ride then, and won't hedge out of the 3-1 £50 I have on Coatbridge.

Coatbridge coming in would be the icing on the cake.

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

I have been saying this for some time. In fact Danny is in many ways more realistic that Osborne in recognising that tax increases are much more likely in the next Parliament than tax cuts.

I simply do not believe that it will be possible to close the deficit whilst ring fencing health and Education (to the extent that Cameron has). Is a country disgusted and sickened by the inquiries into CSE really going to cut spending on Social services etc in half or is there going to be a demand that we actually start looking after children in our care?

I partly agree with that, but ring-fencing health is effectively a given because the demand and costs increase inexorably and health expenditure as a proportion of GDP will therefore continue to rise in all Western nation. The Tories are proposing a freeze (i.e. cut in real terms) in education, though.

On your last point, it's not care for children but care for the elderly which is the expensive item.

Well it is at the moment but that is because we have chosen to neglect children in care and to do almost nothing for them when they come out of care at 18. This cannot continue.

On education the real spend per pupil

I completely agree with the removal of fripperies from higher rate tax paying pensioners too. It is completely immoral to protect those whilst capping the benefits of people who have been stupid enough to have too many children. The cap is a good policy but to make it harsher (rather than simply maintaining it at the same level gradually making it harsher in real terms) it seems to me that the tories are picking on the weak and people they frankly disapprove of.

Clearly cuts have to be made on benefits: even the Lib Dems have £4bn of cuts, but the question are what are our priorities and I personally have more sympathy with the Lib Dem position on this than Osborne's.

TheWatcher said:

MikeK said:

TheWatcher said:

MikeK said:

Guess who are going to make (manufacture) the new battle helmets for the British army................

................the Israelis: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2933921/British-soldiers-equipped-state-art-battle-helmets-Stormtrooper-look.html

Is your point that they're excellent at manufacturing military hardware, which they are, or something else?

Regardless, they're actually being made in Canada, but the contracted supplier happens to be an Israeli company.

No. My point, for the obtuse is, why on earth can't they manufacture the helmets in Britain?

Because better ones are obtainable elsewhere.

The MoD has hosed billions over the years, buying overpriced and poorly engineered UK built kit in procurement projects that over ran by years, with nothing delivered, when they could have bought off the shelf for less, from overseas.

It's good to see that someone's got the message, that British isn't necessarily best.

Plus the US Army have been testing the same helmet - at least a similar helmet manufactured by the same company. These look to be specific helmets designed for specific front line service not standard issue. As such with a limited production run it would be very expensive to duplicate production.

Oh If only their "Any other Government majority" market had not had the word "majority" in it, they are so clueless I reckon it was Evens whether or not it had the word majority, 1000-1 too !

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

Pulpstar said:

From the poll, doubt SNP will gain Glasgow NE,

And East, North, South look safe enough SNP to me

SW and NW could both be tight

Central probably stays SNP whatever the weather but if Labour put in enough work isn't outside reach.

Bear in mind that the polls may well understate the SNP's position, because it was compiled by reference to respondents' recall of their vote in 2010 (some respondents will be confused by the 2011 election, where far more voters opted for the SNP).

But that looks like an accurate enough summary of the way in which the seats might swing back to Labour.

Thanks,

I'll let my big fat Cumbernauld bet ride then, and won't hedge out of the 3-1 £50 I have on Coatbridge.

Coatbridge coming in would be the icing on the cake.

This was 11/1 yesterday wasn't it?

Backed Rother Valley again this morning at 8/1 w Hills..

antifrank said:

On topic, it has to be recognised that there have now been a succession of polls in Sheffield Hallam which don't exactly show Nick Clegg to be in a very good place. There comes a point where you have to acknowledge he's in a real dogfight just to get back to Parliament.

If he doesn't and as seems almost certain now Danny Alexander doesn't, the dynamics of any post-election negotiations over the flavour of the next government are going to be radically different.

Only if other LibDems are elected. If there are no LibDem MPs, then there will be no negotiations with them.

antifrank said:

On topic, it has to be recognised that there have now been a succession of polls in Sheffield Hallam which don't exactly show Nick Clegg to be in a very good place. There comes a point where you have to acknowledge he's in a real dogfight just to get back to Parliament.

If he doesn't and as seems almost certain now Danny Alexander doesn't, the dynamics of any post-election negotiations over the flavour of the next government are going to be radically different.

You mean Cable and Farron will simply deliver the LibDem rump to Labour on a plate?

peter_from_putney said:

antifrank said:

On topic, it has to be recognised that there have now been a succession of polls in Sheffield Hallam which don't exactly show Nick Clegg to be in a very good place. There comes a point where you have to acknowledge he's in a real dogfight just to get back to Parliament.

If he doesn't and as seems almost certain now Danny Alexander doesn't, the dynamics of any post-election negotiations over the flavour of the next government are going to be radically different.

You mean Cable and Farron will simply deliver the LibDem rump to Labour on a plate?

I don't think Davey would accept that without a fight.

Cyclefree said:

taffys said:

But easier than tackling the real problem.

The problem is too big. Same as rape of young girls. The criminality is so large we would need internment camps to properly punish all the guilty parties.

The problem is large because we have allowed it to grow. And there are things that could be done beyond simply passing a law and wringing our hands (and the work already being done by womens' groups).

1. Reintroduce regular inspections by school nurses of girls most at risk.
2. On discovering a case of FGM, that girl and all other girls in the family to be made wards of court so that no decisions can be made without the court's involvement.
3. Make this a strict liability offence i.e. the parents are guilty if their daughter suffers FGM. This does not happen without the parents knowing and wanting it. That way you don't have all the issues of getting a child to give evidence against her parents etc. The level of sanction will be mitigated to the extent the parents co-operate by giving details of who else was involved e.g. any doctors or others involved.
4. Make it a legal duty on doctors/nurses/health visitors etc to report it to the authorities.

You need a concerted campaign at all sort of levels to get to grips with the problem. At the moment it can easily be done, the chances of prosecution - let alone conviction - are vanishingly small. If parents realised that (a) it would be uncovered; and (b) they lose control of their children it might make some think again.

Making it a requirement for doctors to report cases of FGM would solve most of the reporting problem. Also, I think you need to assume that parents are accessories to the crime of ABH.

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

I have been saying this for some time. In fact Danny is in many ways more realistic that Osborne in recognising that tax increases are much more likely in the next Parliament than tax cuts.

I simply do not believe that it will be possible to close the deficit whilst ring fencing health and Education (to the extent that Cameron has). Is a country disgusted and sickened by the inquiries into CSE really going to cut spending on Social services etc in half or is there going to be a demand that we actually start looking after children in our care?

I partly agree with that, but ring-fencing health is effectively a given because the demand and costs increase inexorably and health expenditure as a proportion of GDP will therefore continue to rise in all Western nation. The Tories are proposing a freeze (i.e. cut in real terms) in education, though.

On your last point, it's not care for children but care for the elderly which is the expensive item.

Well it is at the moment but that is because we have chosen to neglect children in care and to do almost nothing for them when they come out of care at 18. This cannot continue.

On education the real spend per pupil

I completely agree with the removal of fripperies from higher rate tax paying pensioners too. It is completely immoral to protect those whilst capping the benefits of people who have been stupid enough to have too many children. The cap is a good policy but to make it harsher (rather than simply maintaining it at the same level gradually making it harsher in real terms) it seems to me that the tories are picking on the weak and people they frankly disapprove of.
Clearly cuts have to be made on benefits: even the Lib Dems have £4bn of cuts, but the question are what are our priorities and I personally have more sympathy with the Lib Dem position on this than Osborne's.

Are you really upset so much over 'fripperies' for better off pensioners?
Pensioners paying the higher rate tax on their pensions are relatively few compared to everyone else. Lest we forget - that is tax they are paying. Geddit? Tax. It makes me wonder why you want to bother to pay them the state pension anyway.
These fripperies include bus passes which need to be applied for. What else? Fuel allowance? Does Lord Sugar claim his fuel allowance? On top of this the age for the state pension is going up anyway. Just how much money is going to be saved after administration when we start discrimination against supposedly wealthy people over 68?
How is this going to change Britain?

Meanwhile on Tyneside...

"A huge investigation into sexual crimes against women and girls as young as 13 has resulted in 20 men being charged."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-31151445

http://www1.skysports.com/racing/results/video/656718/haydock-park/17-01-2015/stanjames-com-champion-hurdle-trial?token=da5283579e

This is how odds on Clegg is going to hack up in May...

peter_from_putney said:

antifrank said:

On topic, it has to be recognised that there have now been a succession of polls in Sheffield Hallam which don't exactly show Nick Clegg to be in a very good place. There comes a point where you have to acknowledge he's in a real dogfight just to get back to Parliament.

If he doesn't and as seems almost certain now Danny Alexander doesn't, the dynamics of any post-election negotiations over the flavour of the next government are going to be radically different.

You mean Cable and Farron will simply deliver the LibDem rump to Labour on a plate?

Is Cable going to survive the election?

About a year ago it was put to Lynne Featherstone on Newsnight that at-risk girls should be checked by doctors to establish whether they had been subjected to FGM, as they do in France. Her response was to say something like "we couldn't possibly do that". The problem is if that's the only way to tackle the problem it has to be done no matter how objectionable some people may find it. If you simply ask people, of course they're going to deny it if they know they're going to be in serious trouble.

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

@Pulpstar FPT I'm not too confident about winning on that particular bet...

Well it was only a pound a point, I've become a bit bolder since then...

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

Pulpstar said:

From the poll, doubt SNP will gain Glasgow NE,

And East, North, South look safe enough SNP to me

SW and NW could both be tight

Central probably stays SNP whatever the weather but if Labour put in enough work isn't outside reach.

Bear in mind that the polls may well understate the SNP's position, because it was compiled by reference to respondents' recall of their vote in 2010 (some respondents will be confused by the 2011 election, where far more voters opted for the SNP).

But that looks like an accurate enough summary of the way in which the seats might swing back to Labour.

Thanks,

I'll let my big fat Cumbernauld bet ride then, and won't hedge out of the 3-1 £50 I have on Coatbridge.

Coatbridge coming in would be the icing on the cake.

This was 11/1 yesterday wasn't it?

Backed Rother Valley again this morning at 8/1 w Hills..

Coatbridge was 3-1, Cumbernauld 5-4 when the Ashcroft poll got leaked (For the SNP)

Sorry , I meant the Lib Dems beating the SNP was 11/1 yesterday I think w Coral

Hah yes, I got on at 10s

Flightpath said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

IOn your last point, it's not care for children but care for the elderly which is the expensive item.

Well it is at the moment but that is because we have chosen to neglect children in care and to do almost nothing for them when they come out of care at 18. This cannot continue.

Are you really upset so much over 'fripperies' for better off pensioners?
Pensioners paying the higher rate tax on their pensions are relatively few compared to everyone else. Lest we forget - that is tax they are paying. Geddit? Tax. It makes me wonder why you want to bother to pay them the state pension anyway.
These fripperies include bus passes which need to be applied for. What else? Fuel allowance? Does Lord Sugar claim his fuel allowance? On top of this the age for the state pension is going up anyway. Just how much money is going to be saved after administration when we start discrimination against supposedly wealthy people over 68?
How is this going to change Britain?Are you really upset so much over 'fripperies' for better off pensioners?
Pensioners paying the higher rate tax on their pensions are relatively few compared to everyone else. Lest we forget - that is tax they are paying. Geddit? Tax. It makes me wonder why you want to bother to pay them the state pension anyway.
These fripperies include bus passes which need to be applied for. What else? Fuel allowance? Does Lord Sugar claim his fuel allowance? On top of this the age for the state pension is going up anyway. Just how much money is going to be saved after administration when we start discrimination against supposedly wealthy people over 68?
How is this going to change Britain

Well the really big one is higher rate pension tax relief for pensioners which costs £7bn a year. There is also the free TV licences etc.

The biggest problem I can see is the triple lock on pensions. When inflation is 0.5% we simply cannot afford to increase pensions by 2.5% a year. Whoever wins the election is going to have to break another unaffordable political promise.

The idea of poor pensioners struggling to keep warm and fed is something that belongs in the history books, and rightly so. There are significant numbers of pensioners, particularly those with public sector or final salary pensions, who are very comfortable. I don't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with them being protected to the extent that they are when times are hard and we are as a country still living so far beyond our means.

Mr. Dair, that does rather ignore the rising demographic problems which also affect Scotland, the drop in bilateral trade which will harm Scotland, and the financial sector heading south.

antifrank said:

The rightwing press are really running with this war between Labour and business:

"One of Labour’s most prominent donors has described the memory lapses of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls as very embarrassing and raised concerns that such gaffes could reinforce the perception that the party cannot be trusted on the economy...

Noon, who is well connected among the donor community, also appears to reflect many other concerns from business people who gave to the party before the 2010 election. Four other donors, speaking to the Guardian anonymously, have said they will not be donating before this election because Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are hostile to business and weak on the economy."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/05/labour-donor-gulam-noon-miliband-balls-embarrassing-gaffes-anti-business

Nick Robinson & Andrew Neil (BBC but not lefties) pointed out yesterday that putting himself up as the man who sides against big business isn't accidental from Miliband

He has form (Murdoch and energy companies)

Amazes me how many people on here truly think that he is some harmless nerdy geek who doesn't know what he is doing from one day to the next. How much more ruthless, political and conniving do you have to be to knife your brothers professional career?

AndyJS said:

About a year ago it was put to Lynne Featherstone on Newsnight that at-risk girls should be checked by doctors to establish whether they had been subjected to FGM, as they do in France. Her response was to say something like "we couldn't possibly do that". The problem is if that's the only way to tackle the problem it has to be done no matter how objectionable some people may find it. If you simply ask people, of course they're going to deny it if they know they're going to be in serious trouble.

Yes - that sort of feeble response is why we have the problem. We should just do it. And face down those who object. In my book people who do - or allow this to be done - to their daughters are child abusers. I have no interest in their objections. I would rather they learnt why it must not be done and ceased of their own accord but if that does not work then we must take sterner measures.

I don't know how someone like that - who is concerned with the relative triviality of girls oppressed by size zero models in magazines - can ignore the immeasurable suffering that these girls endure, not just at the time, but for the rest of their lives. How can someone who claims to be concerned about women, who has the chance to do something about it in politics, sleep at night?

Another 20 charged: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-31151445

The government is accused of doing nothing but the courts are going to grind to a halt at this rate.

RodCrosby said:

Glitter guilty on all charges: facing Life in jail...

Rock & Roll!

Looks like he really was the leader after all

Dair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dair, that does rather ignore the rising demographic problems which also affect Scotland, the drop in bilateral trade which will harm Scotland, and the financial sector heading south.

a far, far better position with average LE about 4 years lower.

That's one way of looking at it........

antifrank said:

On topic, it has to be recognised that there have now been a succession of polls in Sheffield Hallam which don't exactly show Nick Clegg to be in a very good place. There comes a point where you have to acknowledge he's in a real dogfight just to get back to Parliament.

If he doesn't and as seems almost certain now Danny Alexander doesn't, the dynamics of any post-election negotiations over the flavour of the next government are going to be radically different.

Fair point. I think Clegg has already announced his negotiation team for 2015: Danny Alexander, Steve Webb, Sal Brinton, Lynne Featherstone and David Laws.

As long as Clegg is leader I'm not sure if matters too much whether they're in the House or not.

Yes - that sort of feeble response is why we have the problem.

But you are looking at a 10-years ago solution to the problem. There are 60,000 FGM kids, right? social services would have a meltdown.

How many Perps are there in this Asian taxi driver rape scandal?

Our prison population might have to double. Let alone the court/police/.probation time