politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the third London Mayoral election in succession CON hop
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the third London Mayoral election in succession CON hopes look set to rest on a blond old-Etonian
According to Joe Murhpy in the Standard Zac’s candidature is dependent on the outcome of a referendum he is holding in his Rixhmond Park constituency.
Comments
-
Old Etonians FTW
He was 22/1 a few weeks ago......0 -
Who pays for the letter Zac is sending out?0
-
After the GE has the tag "old Etonian" contributed to the shortening of Zac's price ?
0 -
Were he to become London Mayor, as a trading bet, Zac Goldsmith as next Tory Leader is 66/1 looks good.0
-
Did you check his family name, and his wifes... they probably lose than much down the back of the sofablackburn63 said:Who pays for the letter Zac is sending out?
0 -
Oh God, he's backed by Jewish Banking Money. The loons and tin foilers are going to be unbearable.Indigo said:
Did you check his family name, and his wifes... they probably lose than much down the back of the sofablackburn63 said:Who pays for the letter Zac is sending out?
0 -
I only got 20/1TheScreamingEagles said:Old Etonians FTW
He was 22/1 a few weeks ago......0 -
New endorsements for Burnham
Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) Holly Lynch (Halifax), Alan Meale (Mansfield), Kate Hollern (Blackburn) & Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central)0 -
So if he's funding it himself I guess we're looking at approx £50k.
Just as well they're getting that pay rise.0 -
You got £50 on though, the 22-1 was limited to £17.05Tissue_Price said:
I only got 20/1TheScreamingEagles said:Old Etonians FTW
He was 22/1 a few weeks ago......0 -
£50K's a rounding error for a Goldsmith.blackburn63 said:So if he's funding it himself I guess we're looking at approx £50k.
Just as well they're getting that pay rise.0 -
Especially one married to a Rothschild who's wife's mother is a Guinness.watford30 said:
£50K's a rounding error for a Goldsmith.blackburn63 said:So if he's funding it himself I guess we're looking at approx £50k.
Just as well they're getting that pay rise.0 -
I wonder what the syllabus at Eton on government is made up of. Just a parade of British and world leaders and lesser statesmen coming by for a chat I should think.0
-
Jon Ashworth (Leicester South) declares for Yvette
Tom Blackinshop (Middlesbrough South) and Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) for Liz0 -
End of the Union?
@paulhutcheon: TNS poll: 80% of 25-34 year olds will vote @thesnp; only 6% will vote @scottishlabour0 -
Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?0
-
£100 actually, shop job. Only bet I have had on the Mayoralty so far - finding the Labour side tough to call though obviously just backing both frontrunners at a net 11/10 or so is sensible if uninspired.Pulpstar said:
You got £50 on though, the 22-1 was limited to £17.05Tissue_Price said:
I only got 20/1TheScreamingEagles said:Old Etonians FTW
He was 22/1 a few weeks ago......0 -
The last time I spoke to Zac Goldsmith was in 2010 outside a polling station on election day. He looked very worried and uneasy about being elected. I told him not to worry and that he was sure to be elected.
I, as one of the local voters look forward to receiving his letter and consent form.0 -
In all honesty someone super rich and concerned with greeny type causes, as apparently Zac (if he's to be the successor to Boris I guess he needs to start going purely by first name) is, for a Tory anyway, seems like the perfect fit for the image London cultivates, notwithstanding all those residents who are not in that bracket.0
-
Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.Pulpstar said:Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?
0 -
As an attendee of a very minor public school, I and others including those that attended state schools, have this theory, that the most important thing private education gives, is self confidence in oneself, and general intellectual self confidence.kle4 said:I wonder what the syllabus at Eton on government is made up of. Just a parade of British and world leaders and lesser statesmen coming by for a chat I should think.
So if you attended the likes of Eton, Harrow or Millfield, then you super self confidence.0 -
Don't forget Sol!Tissue_Price said:
Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.Pulpstar said:Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?
0 -
There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.0
-
Ah yes. 1/6 then.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't forget Sol!Tissue_Price said:
Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.Pulpstar said:Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?
However I have bad news for fellow Yvette Cooper backers though, as an unwanted endorsement threatens to derail her bid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11662201/Andy-Burnham-didnt-let-me-play-for-his-football-team.-Now-hes-going-to-get-it....html0 -
So why didn't Zac declare as a candidate for mayor 6 months ago, and let someone else run for parliament?
If it is Zac v Tessa, I would have had a problem if I had still been registered to vote in London.0 -
I get the feeling Dan is rather enjoying the validation of many of his views after years of being mocked by many (myself included, though I always thought he was a pretty decent writer), and so penning a piece giving those justifications for backing or not backing the leadership candidates, when now his views will be taken much more seriously, seems like a bit of an in joke. Quite an interesting piece though.Tissue_Price said:
Ah yes. 1/6 then.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't forget Sol!Tissue_Price said:
Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.Pulpstar said:Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?
However I have bad news for fellow Yvette Cooper backers though, as an unwanted endorsement threatens to derail her bid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11662201/Andy-Burnham-didnt-let-me-play-for-his-football-team.-Now-hes-going-to-get-it....html0 -
Zac could well bring in the 5-2 too I guess.0
-
Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.0 -
I would have thought spending money this way would almost guarantee Goldsmith loses the election if he ends up nominated.blackburn63 said:So if he's funding it himself I guess we're looking at approx £50k.
Just as well they're getting that pay rise.0 -
That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
I can see that. Knowing your parents can afford it and have the connections for you to mix with the Eton crowd must be a confidence booster. That must be why I have the self confidence of a pessimistic lemming, or so I shall maintain as an excuse.TheScreamingEagles said:
As an attendee of a very minor public school, I and others including those that attended state schools, have this theory, that the most important thing private education gives, is self confidence in oneself, and general intellectual self confidence.kle4 said:I wonder what the syllabus at Eton on government is made up of. Just a parade of British and world leaders and lesser statesmen coming by for a chat I should think.
So if you attended the likes of Eton, Harrow or Millfield, then you super self confidence.
0 -
When is the nomination deadline for the Labour leadership ?0
-
Exactly.kle4 said:
That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.
The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?0 -
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.0 -
Next Monday, 15th.Pulpstar said:When is the nomination deadline for the Labour leadership ?
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/5985138378690150400 -
If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.OldKingCole said:
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.0 -
According to the Standard piece - which is based on an interview with Zac - he is expected to stand down if he wins. I don't think the Tories would fear the by-election.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/tory-mp-zac-goldsmith-announces-his-bid-to-run-for-london-mayor-10306819.html0 -
Nah, given he has access to almost infinite cash * ( http://www.therichest.com/business/5-lesser-known-facts-about-the-rothschild-family/?view=all ), all he can do is use it in the right way. Asking his constituents if he should run is a decent enough use of the money.Flightpathl said:
I would have thought spending money this way would almost guarantee Goldsmith loses the election if he ends up nominated.blackburn63 said:So if he's funding it himself I guess we're looking at approx £50k.
Just as well they're getting that pay rise.0 -
Cyclefree said:
Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
If that's all Cameron gets, I can see OUT winning by a mile.
0 -
Two full time salaries for two part time jobs. What's not to like?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly.kle4 said:
That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.
The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?0 -
How's it different to any of the other 100 ministers who are MPs?SandyRentool said:
Two full time salaries for two part time jobs. What's not to like?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly.kle4 said:
That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.
The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
0 -
@LadPolitics: Ladbrokes quote 2/1 that the #SNP win ALL 73 constituency seats at 2016 Holyrood election. http://ow.ly/O4faD0
-
Hmm he's not really doing it for the money tbh !SandyRentool said:
Two full time salaries for two part time jobs. What's not to like?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly.kle4 said:
That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.
The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?0 -
Orkney will hold out. As will something in the Borders.TheScreamingEagles said:@LadPolitics: Ladbrokes quote 2/1 that the #SNP win ALL 73 constituency seats at 2016 Holyrood election. http://ow.ly/O4faD
0 -
Quite. But it's also a feint because we already have the remedy in our own hands. Cameron should be concentrating on those issues where he does need EU agreement and where there is a vital British interest at stake. Control of financial services, for instance, or of our criminal justice system e.g. what if the EU were to alter the rules on the burden of proof in criminal trials or seek to abolish trial by jury (which does not exist in other European countries) etc.MarkHopkins said:Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
If that's all Cameron gets, I can see OUT winning by a mile.
EU migrants coming here for benefts is not such an issue, first, because the majority come here to work and, second, because the problem is caused by having in effect a non-contributory welfare system rather than a contributory one as in much of the rest of Europe. That latter issue is not imposed on us by EU rules.
0 -
Can I just say that I went to Eton... by crossing the bridge over the Thames at Windsor a couple of weekends ago!
0 -
Why not? Not everyone can rely on Daddy, and AFAIK the school system isn't geared up to ensure that no-one leaves without somewhere to go on to.Philip_Thompson said:
If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.OldKingCole said:
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
Same applies to University.0 -
There is an argument for saying that no-one should get anything out of the welfare system unless they have put something in. You could extend that to say that if your parents have contributed that should benefit the child. Equally, if a school leaver has parents, then many would argue that the obligation to support the child should rest with them and not the rest of us.OldKingCole said:
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
But the EU point is that this is something for us. If we had such a "contribute to get benefits" rule then there would be no problem with applying it to Poles as much as the British. I do not see it as a vital British interest to argue for the right to discriminate against Poles working here and it is pathetic if this is what the argument with the EU resolves itself into.
0 -
Liz doesn't come out too well from this one.Tissue_Price said:
Ah yes. 1/6 then.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't forget Sol!Tissue_Price said:
Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.Pulpstar said:Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?
However I have bad news for fellow Yvette Cooper backers though, as an unwanted endorsement threatens to derail her bid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11662201/Andy-Burnham-didnt-let-me-play-for-his-football-team.-Now-hes-going-to-get-it....html0 -
One of the articles suggested he would stand down, if elected.Philip_Thompson said:
How's it different to any of the other 100 ministers who are MPs?SandyRentool said:
Two full time salaries for two part time jobs. What's not to like?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly.kle4 said:
That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.
The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?0 -
Ladbrokes have cut their odds on Zac winning the nomination twice today.rottenborough said:
Liz doesn't come out too well from this one.Tissue_Price said:
Ah yes. 1/6 then.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't forget Sol!Tissue_Price said:
Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.Pulpstar said:Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?
However I have bad news for fellow Yvette Cooper backers though, as an unwanted endorsement threatens to derail her bid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11662201/Andy-Burnham-didnt-let-me-play-for-his-football-team.-Now-hes-going-to-get-it....html
You could have got 1.9 even after his candidacy was announced.0 -
Much of the anti-Europe feeling is about immigration. UKIP amongst other bangs on on this point voiciferously. (Worth noting that remaining in the EEA continues freedom of movement).Cyclefree said:
There is an argument for saying that no-one should get anything out of the welfare system unless they have put something in. You could extend that to say that if your parents have contributed that should benefit the child. Equally, if a school leaver has parents, then many would argue that the obligation to support the child should rest with them and not the rest of us.OldKingCole said:
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
But the EU point is that this is something for us. If we had such a "contribute to get benefits" rule then there would be no problem with applying it to Poles as much as the British. I do not see it as a vital British interest to argue for the right to discriminate against Poles working here and it is pathetic if this is what the argument with the EU resolves itself into.
So I see why that is the hot topic. Few other issues about Europe crop up in conversation apart from with committed europhobes.0 -
The pay, for one thing. The London Mayor gets £143k for what, it is now clear, is very much a part-time job. This is slightly more than the PM gets.Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly.kle4 said:
That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.
The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
Either the mayoralty is a full-time job worth the money, or it is part-time and should be paid for as such. Even better, look into the post to see whether it's really needed. Both Boris and Ken treated it more as an extension of their personalities than an important job.0 -
Charlotte Vere, Laura Trott or Shaun Bailey to be the PPC ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
One of the articles suggested he would stand down, if elected.Philip_Thompson said:
How's it different to any of the other 100 ministers who are MPs?SandyRentool said:
Two full time salaries for two part time jobs. What's not to like?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly.kle4 said:
That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.
The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?0 -
You answered your own question.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
0 -
If someone is at school and lives with their parents, they don't get benefits. Then they leave school. They are still at home. They have no more expenses than they had the previous week. Why should they get benefits then?OldKingCole said:
Why not? Not everyone can rely on Daddy, and AFAIK the school system isn't geared up to ensure that no-one leaves without somewhere to go on to.Philip_Thompson said:
If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.OldKingCole said:
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
Same applies to University.
0 -
You are confusing the media circus with the negotiations.Cyclefree said:
Quite. But it's also a feint because we already have the remedy in our own hands. Cameron should be concentrating on those issues where he does need EU agreement and where there is a vital British interest at stake. Control of financial services, for instance, or of our criminal justice system e.g. what if the EU were to alter the rules on the burden of proof in criminal trials or seek to abolish trial by jury (which does not exist in other European countries) etc.
EU migrants coming here for benefts is not such an issue, first, because the majority come here to work and, second, because the problem is caused by having in effect a non-contributory welfare system rather than a contributory one as in much of the rest of Europe. That latter issue is not imposed on us by EU rules.
An easy mistake to make, admittedly. Almost everyone makes it.
0 -
That's about right. Add in rhetoric, logic, ethics, constitutional law and social, political and economic history in the long nineteenth centurykle4 said:I wonder what the syllabus at Eton on government is made up of. Just a parade of British and world leaders and lesser statesmen coming by for a chat I should think.
0 -
Do you count disability benefits in this?Cyclefree said:
If someone is at school and lives with their parents, they don't get benefits. Then they leave school. They are still at home. They have no more expenses than they had the previous week. Why should they get benefits then?OldKingCole said:
Why not? Not everyone can rely on Daddy, and AFAIK the school system isn't geared up to ensure that no-one leaves without somewhere to go on to.Philip_Thompson said:
If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.OldKingCole said:
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
Same applies to University.0 -
I'd be more inclined to believe you if I saw any evidence at all of the government holding a red line over justice, for instance (where they recently opted into a whole load of provisions which will certainly cause problems for us in the future), or even financial services, let alone other issues - contributions to the CAP. Admittedly the government won a case in the European court which helps in the case of financial services. But all Ministers go on about is this issue which comes across as Britain wailing about why it can't be nasty to foreigners.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are confusing the media circus with the negotiations.Cyclefree said:
Quite. But it's also a feint because we already have the remedy in our own hands. Cameron should be concentrating on those issues where he does need EU agreement and where there is a vital British interest at stake. Control of financial services, for instance, or of our criminal justice system e.g. what if the EU were to alter the rules on the burden of proof in criminal trials or seek to abolish trial by jury (which does not exist in other European countries) etc.
EU migrants coming here for benefts is not such an issue, first, because the majority come here to work and, second, because the problem is caused by having in effect a non-contributory welfare system rather than a contributory one as in much of the rest of Europe. That latter issue is not imposed on us by EU rules.
An easy mistake to make, admittedly. Almost everyone makes it.0 -
Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.0
-
OT I order a lot of things online and the most surprising speediest delivery I've had was a bunch of silk flowers from China that arrived in 4 days. Amazon have outdone themselves this morning.
I ordered a 12kg sack of cat litter about 6pm yesterday - it arrived today at noon. It came from France. Whoever is in charge of their logistics is doing a stunning job.0 -
Perhaps Vince Cable could stand for retreading?Tissue_Price said:
According to the Standard piece - which is based on an interview with Zac - he is expected to stand down if he wins. I don't think the Tories would fear the by-election.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/tory-mp-zac-goldsmith-announces-his-bid-to-run-for-london-mayor-10306819.html
0 -
Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?Life_ina_market_town said:Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.
0 -
You won't see any sign. As Osborne rightly pointed out shortly after the election, the real negotiations will take place in confidence, with the main leaders. The media are and will be full of ill-informed speculation about them, which is best ignored.Cyclefree said:I'd be more inclined to believe you if I saw any evidence at all of the government holding a red line over justice, for instance (where they recently opted into a whole load of provisions which will certainly cause problems for us in the future), or even financial services, let alone other issues - contributions to the CAP. Admittedly the government won a case in the European court which helps in the case of financial services. But all Ministers go on about is this issue which comes across as Britain wailing about why it can't be nasty to foreigners.
0 -
Whenever the franchise has been increased in the past, it has always been on the basis that the recipients should have the same civil rights and responsibilities as the rest of those exercising the franchise. It seems very odd to argue that children are too irresponsible to sit on a jury, yet are responsible enough to cast a vote on the most important national issue of the day.TheWhiteRabbit said:Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?
0 -
Yup. I did wonder how many would notice that.Richard_Nabavi said:
You won't see any sign. As Osborne rightly pointed out shortly after the election, the real negotiations will take place in confidence, with the main leaders. The media are and will be full of ill-informed speculation about them, which is best ignored.Cyclefree said:I'd be more inclined to believe you if I saw any evidence at all of the government holding a red line over justice, for instance (where they recently opted into a whole load of provisions which will certainly cause problems for us in the future), or even financial services, let alone other issues - contributions to the CAP. Admittedly the government won a case in the European court which helps in the case of financial services. But all Ministers go on about is this issue which comes across as Britain wailing about why it can't be nasty to foreigners.
0 -
Got to present it as a fait accompli. If it ran through the press, the German press would have a field day on Merkel, the French on Hollande, and so on, and the feedback effect would be catastrophic.Plato said:Yup. I did wonder how many would notice that.
Richard_Nabavi said:
You won't see any sign. As Osborne rightly pointed out shortly after the election, the real negotiations will take place in confidence, with the main leaders. The media are and will be full of ill-informed speculation about them, which is best ignored.Cyclefree said:I'd be more inclined to believe you if I saw any evidence at all of the government holding a red line over justice, for instance (where they recently opted into a whole load of provisions which will certainly cause problems for us in the future), or even financial services, let alone other issues - contributions to the CAP. Admittedly the government won a case in the European court which helps in the case of financial services. But all Ministers go on about is this issue which comes across as Britain wailing about why it can't be nasty to foreigners.
0 -
Interesting - and smart - that the Deputy Leader close of nominations is two days later than the Leader close. What price Mary Creagh? 25/1 at PP.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Next Monday, 15th.Pulpstar said:When is the nomination deadline for the Labour leadership ?
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/5985138378690150400 -
Oh, I can understand why it's a hot topic. But it has nothing to do with benefits. Either we say that we must be able to opt out of the free movement of people or not. It's a nonsense because we won't get it - other countries will say that they don't want free movement of capital into or out of the UK in that case which would harm us much more. The question of benefits is irrelevant to that issue.foxinsoxuk said:
Much of the anti-Europe feeling is about immigration. UKIP amongst other bangs on on this point voiciferously. (Worth noting that remaining in the EEA continues freedom of movement).Cyclefree said:OldKingCole said:
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
So I see why that is the hot topic. Few other issues about Europe crop up in conversation apart from with committed europhobes.
If that really is the issue we could have the referendum next week and ask people whether they want to stay in the EU with that freedom or leave and have the freedom to control our borders but also find that other countries would also be able to control their borders vs people from Britain.
And in any case we did have the power to limit migration from recent accession countries. We just chose not to use it. So again a pointless issue.
I sometimes feel that banging on about immigration and the EU is a convenient way of masking anxieties about different sorts of concerns - immigration from other non-EU countries, for instance, which people don't for various reasons want to talk about, UKIP included.
There are issues with Britain's relationship with and role in the EU. We have an opportunity now. How much of one, I don't know. We should not however waste it on coming up with some trivial change that is less than it seems designed to keep Nigel Farage happy. All that will do is waste chances and confirm a view in the rest of Europe that Britain is simply not serious or strategic in its approach, a view which we seem to confirm time and time again - with a few exceptions - ever since the whole idea was mooted in the 1950's.
0 -
Because of it being the age of being a responsible adult rather than a child.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?Life_ina_market_town said:Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.
0 -
I understand very well the concept of negotiations being in private. I also understand that a government which opts into all sorts of justice directives is not one which is concerned with preserving the best of English common and criminal law.Richard_Nabavi said:
You won't see any sign. As Osborne rightly pointed out shortly after the election, the real negotiations will take place in confidence, with the main leaders. The media are and will be full of ill-informed speculation about them, which is best ignored.Cyclefree said:I'd be more inclined to believe you if I saw any evidence at all of the government holding a red line over justice, for instance (where they recently opted into a whole load of provisions which will certainly cause problems for us in the future), or even financial services, let alone other issues - contributions to the CAP. Admittedly the government won a case in the European court which helps in the case of financial services. But all Ministers go on about is this issue which comes across as Britain wailing about why it can't be nasty to foreigners.
0 -
If Londoners vote for another posh Tory Etonian, - I’m moving to Venice.0
-
There is a birthright to smoke cigarettes, though not cannabis? That's somewhere in Magna Carta, you say?Life_ina_market_town said:Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.
Yes, making it contribution-dependent is an easy "win". Demand it, shout that you'll defy anyone who disagrees, then do it as you could have done anyway, and hope people will be impressed.edmundintokyo said:
You answered your own question.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
The issue is tricky, because it is both a genuine issue and a proxy. Plenty of people say they're not bothered by migration per se but giving benefits to migrants who haven't paid seems unfair. Some of them mean it, some of them are using it as a civilised way of saying they don't like so many immigrants, some may not even be sure in their own minds. Only the first group will regard a solution that affects Brits as well (and probably doesn't much affect numbers) as a satisfactory solution.
On children, I think Cyclefree underestimates the number who have reasons (sometimes good ones) not to be able to stay at home after they leave school. I'm not in favour of instantly leaving the nest, but we shouldn't make it impossible without parental support, which may not be forthcoming.0 -
Age of criminal responsibility is 10. Should that be the same also?Philip_Thompson said:
Because of it being the age of being a responsible adult rather than a child.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?Life_ina_market_town said:Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.
0 -
What does Salmond actually see in his mirror..that combover is ridiculous.0
-
I really don't know about disability benefits. But I would imagine that if your family gets benefits for having a disabled child aged 17 in school, then there should not be a difference when they reach 18 and leave school. But if they don't then I don't see that reaching 18 should make a difference. I hope that makes sense. But this is not my area of knowledge so perhaps someone else can explain the position.JosiasJessop said:
Do you count disability benefits in this?Cyclefree said:
If someone is at school and lives with their parents, they don't get benefits. Then they leave school. They are still at home. They have no more expenses than they had the previous week. Why should they get benefits then?OldKingCole said:
Why not? Not everyone can rely on Daddy, and AFAIK the school system isn't geared up to ensure that no-one leaves without somewhere to go on to.Philip_Thompson said:
If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.OldKingCole said:
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
Same applies to University.
0 -
O/T I do think it's a laugh that Belgium has now minted a commemorative €2.5 coin.
They should have made its value €18.15....0 -
What a ridiculous waste of money - Sounds like a good opportunity for making some cuts then.JosiasJessop said:
The pay, for one thing. The London Mayor gets £143k for what, it is now clear, is very much a part-time job. This is slightly more than the PM gets.Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly.kle4 said:
That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.Philip_Thompson said:There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.
The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
Either the mayoralty is a full-time job worth the money, or it is part-time and should be paid for as such. Even better, look into the post to see whether it's really needed. Both Boris and Ken treated it more as an extension of their personalities than an important job.
Zac could run committing to take a ministerial salary (which is what would be appropriate) rather than both salaries in full.0 -
I blame the ECHR or summat
A Chinese man is suing actress Zhao Wei for staring at him too intensely through his TV, alleging he has suffered "spiritual damage".
Zhao is one of the country's richest and most famous movie stars, and appears in the prime-time TV show Tiger Mom.
http://bit.ly/1HYUGjo0 -
Not in full its not. Age of full maturity is 18, unless you want to change that we shouldn't be expanding the franchise to 10 year olds - or is that not what you propose? If not, why do you deny 10 year olds the vote if that's your logic?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Age of criminal responsibility is 10. Should that be the same also?Philip_Thompson said:
Because of it being the age of being a responsible adult rather than a child.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?Life_ina_market_town said:Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.
0 -
Little Venice, I hopeSimonStClare said:If Londoners vote for another posh Tory Etonian, - I’m moving to Venice.
0 -
Great start to the cricket by England0
-
So wait, people in Gibraltar are getting a say?
It's an Overseas Territory - why do they get to determine if the UK stays or goes?0 -
Salmond is actually ranting..0
-
Roy goes first ball of the match. Nice catch by Guptill.0
-
Nick: there are always exceptions. Where there are compelling reasons why a youngster needs help and cannot get it from their family of course we should try to help. But as a general rule, where a young adult has a family who can support him or her, they should. That is the approach taken in most of Western Europe: you look to your family first and parents accept that they have the primary responsibility for their children, even after the age of 18. There should not be a general entitlement to benefit just because you've reached the age of 18 and I would like a default assumption that you have to contribute to the general pot before you start taking out of it. This was the basis on which it was first created by Beveridge et al, after all.NickPalmer said:
There is a birthright to smoke cigarettes, though not cannabis? That's somewhere in Magna Carta, you say?Life_ina_market_town said:Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.
edmundintokyo said:
You answered your own question.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
On children, I think Cyclefree underestimates the number who have reasons (sometimes good ones) not to be able to stay at home after they leave school. I'm not in favour of instantly leaving the nest, but we shouldn't make it impossible without parental support, which may not be forthcoming.
0 -
I saw it was 2pm, so turned on the TV, only to see Roy walking back. Nice debut, kid.TheScreamingEagles said:Great start to the cricket by England
0 -
A friend of mine is from a mining family in South Yorkshire. She was the first from her family to go to university, but whilst there she became ill. She managed to get a reasonable degree, but soon afterwards became incapacitated with ME and another illness, in which state she has remained for well over a decade. Her family are poor, and the state pays for her.Cyclefree said:I really don't know about disability benefits. But I would imagine that if your family gets benefits for having a disabled child aged 17 in school, then there should not be a difference when they reach 18 and leave school. But if they don't then I don't see that reaching 18 should make a difference. I hope that makes sense. But this is not my area of knowledge so perhaps someone else can explain the position.
I know her well (and from before she became ill), and it is one hundred percent genuine. At school she was in the RAF junior scheme (whose name I forget). She has had no chance to pay into any contributory scheme.
If she could, she would work. I see her as a classic example of the welfare safety net. Her benefits are expensive to the state, but I see it as vital we as a society continue to pay for people like her.
Others sadly differ.
So what do you think should happen in this situation?0 -
What a load of codswallop. You're seriously claiming university graduates can't find a job?OldKingCole said:
Why not? Not everyone can rely on Daddy, and AFAIK the school system isn't geared up to ensure that no-one leaves without somewhere to go on to.Philip_Thompson said:
If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.OldKingCole said:
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.Cyclefree said:Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
Same applies to University.
Barring extreme disabilities there are even unskilled jobs out there, which are largely getting filled by migrants for whom our language is a second language because many natives view themselves above (or not needing) to take such a job.
Welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Barring those with severe disabilities I would have no objection to making a contribution requirement before young adults can claim benefits they've made no effort into contributing towards.0 -
Philip_Thompson said:
Not in full its not. Age of full maturity is 18, unless you want to change that we shouldn't be expanding the franchise to 10 year olds - or is that not what you propose? If not, why do you deny 10 year olds the vote if that's your logic?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Age of criminal responsibility is 10. Should that be the same also?Philip_Thompson said:
Because of it being the age of being a responsible adult rather than a child.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?Life_ina_market_town said:Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.
My logic is that different issues require different levels of maturity/competency. Just as the age of criminal responsibility can be lower than the voting age, so the voting age can be higher or lower than the age required to buy cigarettes.0 -
In English law until 1998, there were no fundamental rights, only immunities from interference from others (Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] AC 1054, 1065 (CA) per Browne-Wilkinson LJ). All such immunities can properly be described as birthrights of the people of England. Until the Labour Government made article 2 of the Children and Young Persons (Sale of Tobacco etc.) Order 2007 SI 2007/767, it was thus the birthright of certain children to buy cigarettes.NickPalmer said:There is a birthright to smoke cigarettes, though not cannabis? That's somewhere in Magna Carta, you say?
0 -
Along with immigrants all over europe of UK origin.Alistair said:So wait, people in Gibraltar are getting a say?
It's an Overseas Territory - why do they get to determine if the UK stays or goes?0 -
Venice is owned by very posh people..much posher than the newly rich that attend Eton.
0 -
Only if you view voting as requiring less maturity than smoking, taking out a loan, serving on a jury etc - do you? I don't voting is one of the most serious rights and responsibilities an adult has and should have the same age as other equally serious rights and responsibilities.TheWhiteRabbit said:Philip_Thompson said:
Not in full its not. Age of full maturity is 18, unless you want to change that we shouldn't be expanding the franchise to 10 year olds - or is that not what you propose? If not, why do you deny 10 year olds the vote if that's your logic?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Age of criminal responsibility is 10. Should that be the same also?Philip_Thompson said:
Because of it being the age of being a responsible adult rather than a child.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?Life_ina_market_town said:Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.
My logic is that different issues require different levels of maturity/competency. Just as the age of criminal responsibility can be lower than the voting age, so the voting age can be higher or lower than the age required to buy cigarettes.
What makes voting require less maturity in your eyes?0 -
As a matter of interest; apart from being a posh Tory, is there any reason to believe that Zac Goldsmith will make a decent mayor of London? He always struck me as a young man that has never finished his gap year through inheriting loadsamoney.
0 -
Those circumstances are outside of her control, it is what a safety net (rather than a lifestyle choice) is for.JosiasJessop said:
A friend of mine is from a mining family in South Yorkshire. She was the first from her family to go to university, but whilst there she became ill. She managed to get a reasonable degree, but soon afterwards became incapacitated with ME and another illness, in which state she has remained for well over a decade. Her family are poor, and the state pays for her.Cyclefree said:I really don't know about disability benefits. But I would imagine that if your family gets benefits for having a disabled child aged 17 in school, then there should not be a difference when they reach 18 and leave school. But if they don't then I don't see that reaching 18 should make a difference. I hope that makes sense. But this is not my area of knowledge so perhaps someone else can explain the position.
I know her well (and from before she became ill), and it is one hundred percent genuine. At school she was in the RAF junior scheme (whose name I forget). She has had no chance to pay into any contributory scheme.
If she could, she would work. I see her as a classic example of the welfare safety net. Her benefits are expensive to the state, but I see it as vital we as a society continue to pay for people like her.
Others sadly differ.
So what do you think should happen in this situation?0 -
Put them in charge of the country!Plato said:OT I order a lot of things online and the most surprising speediest delivery I've had was a bunch of silk flowers from China that arrived in 4 days. Amazon have outdone themselves this morning.
I ordered a 12kg sack of cat litter about 6pm yesterday - it arrived today at noon. It came from France. Whoever is in charge of their logistics is doing a stunning job.0 -
Immigrants all over Europe of UK origin makes sense when it was described as just the UK general election franchise, adding Gibraltar seems completely out of left field.SandyRentool said:
Along with immigrants all over europe of UK origin.Alistair said:So wait, people in Gibraltar are getting a say?
It's an Overseas Territory - why do they get to determine if the UK stays or goes?0 -
@bbclaurak: Strangeness of the Labour race -one MP trying to gather nominations for Harman to get her on ballot paper as a caretaker leader today...0
-
Some wag on twitterTissue_Price said:
I saw it was 2pm, so turned on the TV, only to see Roy walking back. Nice debut, kid.TheScreamingEagles said:Great start to the cricket by England
Jason and the out-for-noughts0
