The conservatives under Cameron are now a sham party. Their MP's may have gone off into recess with a lighter bounce, but they will return after conference season to confront the bitter realities of this autumns political scene.
I don't think that Cammo has kept a single political promise in its entirety. Below is another massive promise made that he has never kept and in all probability, never meant to keep.
Tories and others hoping that Cammo will keep his referendum promise know in their hearts that with the PM its all smoke and mirrors.
Do UKIP actually have any policies Mike ? Your last series of posts have just been gripes against HMG. Yesterday it was Ford Southampton, though that's been on the cards since 2007 and had nothing to do with this govt. Today it's you don't like Cameron ( we sort of know that ). So how about giving us something UKIP will do instead ? atm it' s just Ed Miliband V2 on the policy front.
A cap around £5k is sensible that still allows a family of four to give £100k over a parliament.
How can a family of 4 possibly give £100k?
A "family of 4" typically has 2 adults and 2 children - 2 adults if giving 5k a year for 5 years (thus no spike at general election as normally happens) can't possibly give £100k.
Or are you proposing either that kids get 5k a year in pocket money they'd choose to give to their parents party? Or are you proposing that the "Head of the Household" really gives all the money but just uses other people's (even childrens) names to do it.
So before rules are even agreed you're looking for ways to violate them? Typical.
When the offspring are over 18 obviously.
Then its misleading to use the "family of 4" phrase. Adult kids are typically independent adults who may even support a different party to their parents, they're not a single unit.
Andrew Neil and the Daily Politics researchers unravelled a family giving huge amounts to the Tories before the last election by splitting the donations around their family to obscure where they came from. Not sure if it's still on the I Player.
And you're wanting to encourage this kind of behaviour? You think its a good thing?
Personally I'd rather one large donation being publicly visible as to who it came from than one relatively large donation being obscured into many tiny ones and not having a clue who's really behidn it.
No I don't think it's a good thing that's why I want a £5k cap and that's why the Tories want the highest cap possible,
Actually Tim, What you want has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness or openness . What you want is the formula that will damage the Tories the most , so why not just be open about it.
A cap around £5k is sensible that still allows a family of four to give £100k over a parliament.
How can a family of 4 possibly give £100k?
A "family of 4" typically has 2 adults and 2 children - 2 adults if giving 5k a year for 5 years (thus no spike at general election as normally happens) can't possibly give £100k.
Or are you proposing either that kids get 5k a year in pocket money they'd choose to give to their parents party? Or are you proposing that the "Head of the Household" really gives all the money but just uses other people's (even childrens) names to do it.
So before rules are even agreed you're looking for ways to violate them? Typical.
When the offspring are over 18 obviously.
Then its misleading to use the "family of 4" phrase. Adult kids are typically independent adults who may even support a different party to their parents, they're not a single unit.
Andrew Neil and the Daily Politics researchers unravelled a family giving huge amounts to the Tories before the last election by splitting the donations around their family to obscure where they came from. Not sure if it's still on the I Player.
And you're wanting to encourage this kind of behaviour? You think its a good thing?
Personally I'd rather one large donation being publicly visible as to who it came from than one relatively large donation being obscured into many tiny ones and not having a clue who's really behidn it.
No I don't think it's a good thing that's why I want a £5k cap and that's why the Tories want the highest cap possible,
If it is what you really want then you haven't thought it through. A lower cap is more likely to lead to the kind of rule-bending / outright fraud you so casually assumed downthread.
Using third parties to make donations on an individual's behalf should be an offence, whether within a family or anywhere else. Of course, if four adults, acting freely, wish to make large donations with their own money all to the same place, they should be able to do so. But those conditions must apply.
I've had five knee operations, including two ACL (cruciate ligament) reconstructions, all done privately. I was insured through the rugby club. I'm retired now!
Our club currently has two players recovering from ACL repairs and one boy going in in August to be reconstructed. All private.
I had a small cartilage op back about 10 years ago and was running within a week. I played a game within a month.
Knee ops among sportspeople are so common these days (my father tore his cruciate back in the 70s and it ended his career, because the ingenuity to fix it wasn't there back then) and it begs the question: should the NHS be concentrating on the likes of me, who get fixed then go back out and break it again? The answer is probably no.
I've long argued that sports clubs should privately insure their players; we now insure all of ours, and it costs a fortune. Surely there could be a scheme dreamt up whereby sports clubs are encouraged/incentivised to insure all their members with cheaper schemes: perhaps a deal can be done via government/health insurance companies. It would take lots of pressure off the NHS and enhance the sporting chances of young people with nasty injuries.
Waiting on the NHS for years to be fixed is no good to anybody who wants a career in sport, at whatever level.
Many social workers lack confidence and know-how when it comes to dealing with online grooming and sexual abuse of children, a survey has suggested.
The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) said they desperately needed specialist training.
An online survey of 327 social workers found 74% wanted more support, while half felt concerned about dealing with online sexual abuse or behaviour.
One said social workers were "way out" of their depth.
Almost three in four of those surveyed said they needed more support with child protection cases which involved "an aspect of online and complex sexual abuse".
The survey also found:
17% did not know how to "assess the risks" to a child when there was an "online dimension", such as internet grooming, to the case 20% said they did not know the "warning signs" of what online sexual abuse looks like 43% lacked confidence about the language used by young people talking about the internet, and more than a third said they did not know the right questions to ask in order to identify and assess online abuse
"The number of cases in which the internet plays a part in the grooming and abuse of children is rising," said the BASW's Nushra Mansuri.
"Social workers need to be equipped to recognise the warning signs."
One of the social workers, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: "I have worked with a young girl who experienced horrendous sexual and violent threats via her mobile phone... and it was very difficult to know how best to proceed."
Another said: "We are way out of our depth and training measures are needed without delay."
"The verdict was met with amazement across the US: a court declaring it was perfectly legal for an Iowa dentist to sack his otherwise exemplary assistant because he found her irresistibly attractive.
Now, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to uphold its ruling for the second time has met with a national outcry, with some legal experts warning that the case could open the door to broader discrimination in the workplace. Following ten years in the job, Melissa Nelson was fired after her married boss said he was worried he would try to start an affair with her.
...After rejecting her claim in December, the court took the rare step of retracting its decision, only to reinstate its ruling earlier this month, arguing that Dr Knight was “driven entirely by individual feelings and emotions regarding a specific person”. She was not fired because of her gender, it said, but because Dr Knight and his wife felt she posed a threat to their marriage. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3826657.ece
A cap around £5k is sensible that still allows a family of four to give £100k over a parliament.
How can a family of 4 possibly give £100k?
A "family of 4" typically has 2 adults and 2 children - 2 adults if giving 5k a year for 5 years (thus no spike at general election as normally happens) can't possibly give £100k.
Or are you proposing either that kids get 5k a year in pocket money they'd choose to give to their parents party? Or are you proposing that the "Head of the Household" really gives all the money but just uses other people's (even childrens) names to do it.
So before rules are even agreed you're looking for ways to violate them? Typical.
When the offspring are over 18 obviously.
Then its misleading to use the "family of 4" phrase. Adult kids are typically independent adults who may even support a different party to their parents, they're not a single unit.
Andrew Neil and the Daily Politics researchers unravelled a family giving huge amounts to the Tories before the last election by splitting the donations around their family to obscure where they came from. Not sure if it's still on the I Player.
And you're wanting to encourage this kind of behaviour? You think its a good thing?
Personally I'd rather one large donation being publicly visible as to who it came from than one relatively large donation being obscured into many tiny ones and not having a clue who's really behidn it.
No I don't think it's a good thing that's why I want a £5k cap and that's why the Tories want the highest cap possible,
Actually Tim, What you want has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness or openness . What you want is the formula that will damage the Tories the most , so why not just be open about it.
Last week capping union funding was going to bankrupt Labour, make your mind up.
you are doing what you often do, put words in other people's mouths. AFAICR , I didn't make any comment about union funding,
The conservatives pinched a seat from the lib dems in Kingston on Thursday with an 8% swing, which set me to wondering if Ed Davey might be vulnerable next time around.
he has an 8,000 majority but in government is coming across as ed windmills. Plus the lib dems might lose left orientated votes to labour.
I asked the other day if there was a league table of by-election results since LE2013 - it'd be really helpful to know the trend rather than the odd ward result or two.
On topic, the goal here should be to make it hard to buy politicians, and keep the politicians focussed on impressing voters not impressing donors.
The obvious thing to do is to limit the ways you can usefully spend, to the point where parties can easily get enough money and don't get much benefit from selling out and raising more. In principle limiting spending sounds hard, because people can think of creative ways to affect the campaign without being counted as the party's spending, but in practice it seems to work pretty well in the UK.
If spending is somewhat limited, limiting donations could actually make the problem worse if it reduces the parties' income to well below what they could usefully spend, because they have to work harder to get the money they need. If that happens I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to public funds on principle, but if the thing can be done without them that's better, especially as the politicians would ultimately be in control of how much to fund themselves, which has a lot of potential for shennanigans.
The conservatives under Cameron are now a sham party. Their MP's may have gone off into recess with a lighter bounce, but they will return after conference season to confront the bitter realities of this autumns political scene.
I don't think that Cammo has kept a single political promise in its entirety. Below is another massive promise made that he has never kept and in all probability, never meant to keep.
Tories and others hoping that Cammo will keep his referendum promise know in their hearts that with the PM its all smoke and mirrors.
Do UKIP actually have any policies Mike ? Your last series of posts have just been gripes against HMG. Yesterday it was Ford Southampton, though that's been on the cards since 2007 and had nothing to do with this govt. Today it's you don't like Cameron ( we sort of know that ). So how about giving us something UKIP will do instead ? atm it' s just Ed Miliband V2 on the policy front.
As against knowing what HMG won't do despite repeated promises. You can always find UKIP policies by moving yourself and going to it's web site.
A lower cap is more likely to lead to the kind of rule-bending / outright fraud you so casually assumed downthread.
If there is also a tough limit on spending then there's no point trying to get around the low cap on donations.
I very much doubt any party would turn down a donation because 'we've enough already, thanks'. Parties aim to maximise income and if there's more than anticipated, they'll then work out what to do with it. If there were global spending limits (i.e. on admin and so on, as well as campaigning), parties would still aim to maximise income and put it in reserve for fallow times.
That's not to say there shouldn't be spending limits: there should. Indeed, the limits would do well to apply between elections as well as during them. Yes, I know - Ashcroft, blah, blah. You work within the rules you're given and if Labour didn't like Ashcroft's spending then more fool them for changing the rules in a way that made it easier rather than harder to make localised unlimited spend.
Requiring sports clubs to pay for PMI is a valid argument. I can only sympathise with your knee problems. I experienced this a little after bad rowing form - it killed and I used dozens of Nurofen gel tubes to dull my hobbling pain.
After I corrected my action, I was fine - but it took weeks. Having knees under the knife must be horrid. I've a sore elbow now and everything seems to set it off.
"The verdict was met with amazement across the US: a court declaring it was perfectly legal for an Iowa dentist to sack his otherwise exemplary assistant because he found her irresistibly attractive.
Now, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to uphold its ruling for the second time has met with a national outcry, with some legal experts warning that the case could open the door to broader discrimination in the workplace. Following ten years in the job, Melissa Nelson was fired after her married boss said he was worried he would try to start an affair with her.
...After rejecting her claim in December, the court took the rare step of retracting its decision, only to reinstate its ruling earlier this month, arguing that Dr Knight was “driven entirely by individual feelings and emotions regarding a specific person”. She was not fired because of her gender, it said, but because Dr Knight and his wife felt she posed a threat to their marriage. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3826657.ece
I know that in many states of the US that people are paid every two weeks (including those we would call salaried) and that notice period is two weeks. AFAIK in many states a valid reason does not have to be given.
The conservatives pinched a seat from the lib dems in Kingston on Thursday with an 8% swing, which set me to wondering if Ed Davey might be vulnerable next time around.
he has an 8,000 majority but in government is coming across as ed windmills. Plus the lib dems might lose left orientated votes to labour.
I asked the other day if there was a league table of by-election results since LE2013 - it'd be really helpful to know the trend rather than the odd ward result or two.
The conservatives under Cameron are now a sham party. Their MP's may have gone off into recess with a lighter bounce, but they will return after conference season to confront the bitter realities of this autumns political scene.
I don't think that Cammo has kept a single political promise in its entirety. Below is another massive promise made that he has never kept and in all probability, never meant to keep.
Tories and others hoping that Cammo will keep his referendum promise know in their hearts that with the PM its all smoke and mirrors.
Do UKIP actually have any policies Mike ? Your last series of posts have just been gripes against HMG. Yesterday it was Ford Southampton, though that's been on the cards since 2007 and had nothing to do with this govt. Today it's you don't like Cameron ( we sort of know that ). So how about giving us something UKIP will do instead ? atm it' s just Ed Miliband V2 on the policy front.
UKIP keeps explaining our philosophical appraoch, rather than concentrating on overly detailed policies on any issue other than BOO.
We do not have a detailed programme for what a UKIP chancellor would do in his first 100 days in office? That is true. Equally, that is true of all the parties. And maybe we will not, as the date of the next GE nears. We try to be a practical rather a theoretical party.
We aim for as 'small govt' as possible. We are keen to look both outwards and inwards, and happy to have trading and political relationship both with Europe and and the rest of the world. We are intinctively against the bureacratic, and often corrupt, interference beloved by all supra-national institutions.
We recognise that the costs of high levels of recent immigration are social rather than economic.
I am going to challenge this: I don't believe the case has been made for change. Mr Herdson has made a couple of unsupported assertions but I have seen no conclusive arguments demonstrating why funding has to change. In fact, there seems to be every reason for partisans of the current major parties to tinker with the system to ensure the status quo is maintained and that new political movements cannot effectively spring up. As he says "I'm not convinced that an overly-diverse party structure is a healthy thing for democracy". Hmm.
A political party is legal. In fact, their partisans will tell us what a vital part of the political system they are. From a libertarian point of view, what argument is there to prevent people from giving their own money to a legal and useful body?
I would say - anyone can donate whatever amount to a political party. However, to allow we the voters to decide whether the parties are being funded from reasonable sources, all party funding streams of any value should be published on the internet. A spreadsheet on Google Documents would do the trick.
I would probably add that for all corporate bodies, there should be a vote of members (union members, shareholders) for every and each donation to a political party.
When I mentioned knee operations,I meant Total Knee Replacements where your knee joint is replaced by a metal hinge joint.This is generally for older people who have arthritis due to wear and tear.Once painkillers have been used for a few years,they don`t work and there is little alternative to surgery.
I've uploaded a graph of YouGov 5-poll performance up to the current archiving of UKPollingReport. As you can see, the Tories are still well-off their pre-2012 performance in terms of vote share, but are profiting from a fall in the Labour vote.
Five poll averages (since the graph is not up to today): Labour lead, 5.4%, Lab 38.6%, Con 33.2%.
I've had five knee operations, including two ACL (cruciate ligament) reconstructions, all done privately. I was insured through the rugby club. I'm retired now!
Our club currently has two players recovering from ACL repairs and one boy going in in August to be reconstructed. All private.
I had a small cartilage op back about 10 years ago and was running within a week. I played a game within a month.
Knee ops among sportspeople are so common these days (my father tore his cruciate back in the 70s and it ended his career, because the ingenuity to fix it wasn't there back then) and it begs the question: should the NHS be concentrating on the likes of me, who get fixed then go back out and break it again? The answer is probably no.
I've long argued that sports clubs should privately insure their players; we now insure all of ours, and it costs a fortune. Surely there could be a scheme dreamt up whereby sports clubs are encouraged/incentivised to insure all their members with cheaper schemes: perhaps a deal can be done via government/health insurance companies. It would take lots of pressure off the NHS and enhance the sporting chances of young people with nasty injuries.
Waiting on the NHS for years to be fixed is no good to anybody who wants a career in sport, at whatever level.
Why stop at sports clubs, why not people who eat fatty foods, drive fast etc. Let alone all the huge admin costs of schemes like this.
Insurance companies do this sort of thing all the time. And yes, people with unhealthy or dangerous lifestyles should pay more.
P3's over, slightly curtailed as Perez crashed. Bit of a shame, as he and McLaren seem rather more competitive than his been the case thus far this season.
Got a few potential bets in mind. Have to wait for the markets to get going a bit, though.
I've had five knee operations, including two ACL (cruciate ligament) reconstructions, all done privately. I was insured through the rugby club. I'm retired now!
Our club currently has two players recovering from ACL repairs and one boy going in in August to be reconstructed. All private.
I had a small cartilage op back about 10 years ago and was running within a week. I played a game within a month.
Knee ops among sportspeople are so common these days (my father tore his cruciate back in the 70s and it ended his career, because the ingenuity to fix it wasn't there back then) and it begs the question: should the NHS be concentrating on the likes of me, who get fixed then go back out and break it again? The answer is probably no.
I've long argued that sports clubs should privately insure their players; we now insure all of ours, and it costs a fortune. Surely there could be a scheme dreamt up whereby sports clubs are encouraged/incentivised to insure all their members with cheaper schemes: perhaps a deal can be done via government/health insurance companies. It would take lots of pressure off the NHS and enhance the sporting chances of young people with nasty injuries.
Waiting on the NHS for years to be fixed is no good to anybody who wants a career in sport, at whatever level.
Why stop at sports clubs, why not people who eat fatty foods, drive fast etc. Let alone all the huge admin costs of schemes like this.
Insurance companies do this sort of thing all the time. And yes, people with unhealthy or dangerous lifestyles should pay more.
When I was a gym rat and spent 20 hours a week at my local David Lloyd club - I'd be happy to fork out for enhanced PMI if I injured myself whilst pushing my body to the limit.
That seems a lucrative additional membership tick box for private gyms - their members are already paying for the experience/facilities.
A lower cap is more likely to lead to the kind of rule-bending / outright fraud you so casually assumed downthread.
If there is also a tough limit on spending then there's no point trying to get around the low cap on donations.
I very much doubt any party would turn down a donation because 'we've enough already, thanks'. Parties aim to maximise income and if there's more than anticipated, they'll then work out what to do with it. If there were global spending limits (i.e. on admin and so on, as well as campaigning), parties would still aim to maximise income and put it in reserve for fallow times.
That's not to say there shouldn't be spending limits: there should. Indeed, the limits would do well to apply between elections as well as during them. Yes, I know - Ashcroft, blah, blah. You work within the rules you're given and if Labour didn't like Ashcroft's spending then more fool them for changing the rules in a way that made it easier rather than harder to make localised unlimited spend.
Sure, nobody turns money away. But if the obvious loopholes were blocked it would drop down the priority list. Limits between elections would be good. I only worry about remote phone canvassing and direct mail and other ways of influencing local voters who are supposed to be covered by local spending limits. I don't really care if the Tories (or UNITE or the National Trust or the Mormons) raise £50 million and spend it on really good opinion polls or deep research or whatever: if that helps the parties develop better policies, that's a good thing.
This issue really needs an independent commission with an explicit mandate to find ways of reducing spending that do not clearly disadvatnage any party - we are all hopelessly biased. A system of successive reforms alternately aimed at screwing whoever is in opposition at the time is unstable and clearly undesirable, much like American boundary mainpulation.
And where would that stop? DIY accidents, should have used a tradesman. Mugged on the way home form Tesco's, should have got you shopping delivered. Etc, etc.
I've had five knee operations, including two ACL (cruciate ligament) reconstructions, all done privately. I was insured through the rugby club. I'm retired now!
Our club currently has two players recovering from ACL repairs and one boy going in in August to be reconstructed. All private.
I had a small cartilage op back about 10 years ago and was running within a week. I played a game within a month.
Knee ops among sportspeople are so common these days (my father tore his cruciate back in the 70s and it ended his career, because the ingenuity to fix it wasn't there back then) and it begs the question: should the NHS be concentrating on the likes of me, who get fixed then go back out and break it again? The answer is probably no.
I've long argued that sports clubs should privately insure their players; we now insure all of ours, and it costs a fortune. Surely there could be a scheme dreamt up whereby sports clubs are encouraged/incentivised to insure all their members with cheaper schemes: perhaps a deal can be done via government/health insurance companies. It would take lots of pressure off the NHS and enhance the sporting chances of young people with nasty injuries.
Waiting on the NHS for years to be fixed is no good to anybody who wants a career in sport, at whatever level.
Why stop at sports clubs, why not people who eat fatty foods, drive fast etc. Let alone all the huge admin costs of schemes like this.
Insurance companies do this sort of thing all the time. And yes, people with unhealthy or dangerous lifestyles should pay more.
"This issue really needs an independent commission with an explicit mandate to find ways of reducing spending that do not clearly disadvatnage any party - we are all hopelessly biased. A system of successive reforms alternately aimed at screwing whoever is in opposition at the time is unstable and clearly undesirable, much like American boundary mainpulation."
I completely agree - however we've seen with stuff like Leveson - one can still pack the deck.
I've uploaded a graph of YouGov 5-poll performance up to the current archiving of UKPollingReport. As you can see, the Tories are still well-off their pre-2012 performance in terms of vote share, but are profiting from a fall in the Labour vote.
Five poll averages (since the graph is not up to today): Labour lead, 5.4%, Lab 38.6%, Con 33.2%.
Really? The pre-2012 Tory share i.e. for 2011, looks to be consistently in the 35-37% range. The current figure is obviously still below that but only by a couple of points at most. Clearly the gap to the Flounce Bounce To Omnishambles period is greater.
And where would that stop? DIY accidents, should have used a tradesman. Mugged on the way home form Tesco's, should have got you shopping delivered. Etc, etc.
I've had five knee operations, including two ACL (cruciate ligament) reconstructions, all done privately. I was insured through the rugby club. I'm retired now!
Our club currently has two players recovering from ACL repairs and one boy going in in August to be reconstructed. All private.
I had a small cartilage op back about 10 years ago and was running within a week. I played a game within a month.
Knee ops among sportspeople are so common these days (my father tore his cruciate back in the 70s and it ended his career, because the ingenuity to fix it wasn't there back then) and it begs the question: should the NHS be concentrating on the likes of me, who get fixed then go back out and break it again? The answer is probably no.
I've long argued that sports clubs should privately insure their players; we now insure all of ours, and it costs a fortune. Surely there could be a scheme dreamt up whereby sports clubs are encouraged/incentivised to insure all their members with cheaper schemes: perhaps a deal can be done via government/health insurance companies. It would take lots of pressure off the NHS and enhance the sporting chances of young people with nasty injuries.
Waiting on the NHS for years to be fixed is no good to anybody who wants a career in sport, at whatever level.
Why stop at sports clubs, why not people who eat fatty foods, drive fast etc. Let alone all the huge admin costs of schemes like this.
Insurance companies do this sort of thing all the time. And yes, people with unhealthy or dangerous lifestyles should pay more.
If you own a horse, and maybe ride it - you're required to have 3rd party insurance. It's pennies if you join the relevant horse club.
Whilst the NHS is there and paid for by every tax payer - if you want to be fixed sooner, then paying a bit as part of a group scheme seems very sensible to me.
I've had five knee operations, including two ACL (cruciate ligament) reconstructions, all done privately. I was insured through the rugby club. I'm retired now!
Our club currently has two players recovering from ACL repairs and one boy going in in August to be reconstructed. All private.
I had a small cartilage op back about 10 years ago and was running within a week. I played a game within a month.
Knee ops among sportspeople are so common these days (my father tore his cruciate back in the 70s and it ended his career, because the ingenuity to fix it wasn't there back then) and it begs the question: should the NHS be concentrating on the likes of me, who get fixed then go back out and break it again? The answer is probably no.
I've long argued that sports clubs should privately insure their players; we now insure all of ours, and it costs a fortune. Surely there could be a scheme dreamt up whereby sports clubs are encouraged/incentivised to insure all their members with cheaper schemes: perhaps a deal can be done via government/health insurance companies. It would take lots of pressure off the NHS and enhance the sporting chances of young people with nasty injuries.
Waiting on the NHS for years to be fixed is no good to anybody who wants a career in sport, at whatever level.
Why stop at sports clubs, why not people who eat fatty foods, drive fast etc. Let alone all the huge admin costs of schemes like this.
I wouldn't want legislation or coercion of people with unhealthy lifestyles, or people who bungee jump every weekend, or people who climb Everest each spring. I would just like to see sports related schemes encouraged.
The NHS is tacitly pushing sportspeople towards private health anyway. Getting an ACL reconstruction on the NHS takes forever (I had my first consultation referral letter arrive after I was back playing, some nine or ten months later); if the NHS really did want to do all these sports ops themselves they would do them quicker.
But promising to repair all non-life-threatening ankle tears, knee tears, neck and shoulder bangs etc within 12 weeks wouldn't be in their interests would it? It would mean clubs like ours would scrap the insurance, save the £20k or so and have it done within 12 weeks on the NHS.
Just looking at the LE by-election results since May...
The LDs are down as are the Tories. I was under the impression on this site that the LDs were holding their position. Tories have lost more - but they've oodles more seats.
Hmmm.
Principal Authority results summary for 2013 up to 20 June
Defender Winner ________________________________________ | Con Lab LDem SNP Plaid Other Total won Con 56 3 5 - - - 64 (-21) Lab 8 58 3 2 - 1 72 (+9) LD 6 1 16 - - 1 24 (-3) SNP - - - - - - 0 (-3) Plaid - - - - - - 0 (+0) Other 15 1 3 1 - 8 28 (+18) Total 85 63 27 3 0 10 188
When I was a gym rat and spent 20 hours a week at my local David Lloyd club - I'd be happy to fork out for enhanced PMI if I injured myself whilst pushing my body to the limit.
And your average Sunday league football club ... what proportion of them would fold if all members were forced to pay for health insurance? And what would the point of driving people away from sport and exercise be?
The NHS are encouraging sportspeople to go private anyway, by handing out ridiculous waiting times for non-life-threatening ops like ankle or knee ruptures.
It wouldn't be in their interests to promise all sports ops to be fixed within, say, 12 weeks. Sports clubs like ours would then scrap the bill for insurance and wait on the NHS.
I can't blame the NHS, the more people who are pushed private to save their careers the better it is for them. All I'm arguing is that sport is a good thing, the healthy lifestyles that surround sport are a good thing, injuries are an unfortunate by-product, and if we are to encourage more sport and more sporting excellence we could think up a clever way of a) encouraging sports clubs to insure players, and b) getting good, injured sportspeople back on playing fields quicker.
I certainly don't want legislation around this, just better use of resources.
On the subject of party funding and as someone who contributes to a political party every month, there's an impossible circle to square between the right of people to give whatever they choose to a political party of their choice whenever they like and the concern that parties and by inference the political process can be bought and sold by the activities of a very few very significant contributors.
It would be unhealthy if party policy was open to manipulation by the financial power of backers and all parties are arguably susceptible to this since parties themselves should in my view be paragons of democratic virtue glowing in the light of transparency and propriety (which we probably can all agree they aren't).
Parties of course function on two key commodities - money and time. Most people in most parties are volunteers - they do it because they want to. The truth is that in a complex modern society traditional political structures only work if you have mass membership movements but to function as modern political entities parties don't need or want a thousand people paying a £1 a year to join but prefer ten people paying £100 a year because that's easier to administer. The problem comes when you lose one of the ten.
I don't have any answers - the current system isn't perfect. I'm not anti State funding inasmuch as none of us controls where our tax money goes. Hypothecation was muted a few years ago but at the end of the day I can imagine a lot of people being upset at funding political structures they don't believe in - but then people see their tax money spent on nuclear weapons even though they might not support such weapons.
When I was a gym rat and spent 20 hours a week at my local David Lloyd club - I'd be happy to fork out for enhanced PMI if I injured myself whilst pushing my body to the limit.
And your average Sunday league football club ... what proportion of them would fold if all members were forced to pay for health insurance? And what would the point of driving people away from sport and exercise be?
Why don't you provide the data to support your argument than ask me for it?
Your talent for belittling other opinions whilst never actually providing a counter argument is legendary. Go on - for a change educate us.
And where would that stop? DIY accidents, should have used a tradesman. Mugged on the way home form Tesco's, should have got you shopping delivered. Etc, etc.
I've had five knee operations, including two ACL (cruciate ligament) reconstructions, all done privately. I was insured through the rugby club. I'm retired now!
Our club currently has two players recovering from ACL repairs and one boy going in in August to be reconstructed. All private.
I had a small cartilage op back about 10 years ago and was running within a week. I played a game within a month.
Knee ops among sportspeople are so common these days (my father tore his cruciate back in the 70s and it ended his career, because the ingenuity to fix it wasn't there back then) and it begs the question: should the NHS be concentrating on the likes of me, who get fixed then go back out and break it again? The answer is probably no.
I've long argued that sports clubs should privately insure their players; we now insure all of ours, and it costs a fortune. Surely there could be a scheme dreamt up whereby sports clubs are encouraged/incentivised to insure all their members with cheaper schemes: perhaps a deal can be done via government/health insurance companies. It would take lots of pressure off the NHS and enhance the sporting chances of young people with nasty injuries.
Waiting on the NHS for years to be fixed is no good to anybody who wants a career in sport, at whatever level.
Why stop at sports clubs, why not people who eat fatty foods, drive fast etc. Let alone all the huge admin costs of schemes like this.
Insurance companies do this sort of thing all the time. And yes, people with unhealthy or dangerous lifestyles should pay more.
If you own a horse, and maybe ride it - you're required to have 3rd party insurance. It's pennies if you join the relevant horse club.
Whilst the NHS is there and paid for by every tax payer - if you want to be fixed sooner, then paying a bit as part of a group scheme seems very sensible to me.
And where would that stop? DIY accidents, should have used a tradesman. Mugged on the way home form Tesco's, should have got you shopping delivered. Etc, etc.
I've had five knee operations, including two ACL (cruciate ligament) reconstructions, all done privately. I was insured through the rugby club. I'm retired now!
Our club currently has two players recovering from ACL repairs and one boy going in in August to be reconstructed. All private.
I had a small cartilage op back about 10 years ago and was running within a week. I played a game within a month.
Waiting on the NHS for years to be fixed is no good to anybody who wants a career in sport, at whatever level.
Why stop at sports clubs, why not people who eat fatty foods, drive fast etc. Let alone all the huge admin costs of schemes like this.
Insurance companies do this sort of thing all the time. And yes, people with unhealthy or dangerous lifestyles should pay more.
If you own a horse, and maybe ride it - you're required to have 3rd party insurance. It's pennies if you join the relevant horse club.
Whilst the NHS is there and paid for by every tax payer - if you want to be fixed sooner, then paying a bit as part of a group scheme seems very sensible to me.
I was offering an example of a pastime where it was covered for a very small insurance sum because it was a mass activity.
3rd party insurance covers damage caused to others. It doesn't cover people who injure themselves plaqying football, falling off their horse or drilling through some live cables putting shelves up.
And where would that stop? DIY accidents, should have used a tradesman. Mugged on the way home form Tesco's, should have got you shopping delivered. Etc, etc.
I've had five knee operations, including two ACL (cruciate ligament) reconstructions, all done privately. I was insured through the rugby club. I'm retired now!
Our club currently has two players recovering from ACL repairs and one boy going in in August to be reconstructed. All private.
I had a small cartilage op back about 10 years ago and was running within a week. I played a game within a month.
Waiting on the NHS for years to be fixed is no good to anybody who wants a career in sport, at whatever level.
Why stop at sports clubs, why not people who eat fatty foods, drive fast etc. Let alone all the huge admin costs of schemes like this.
Insurance companies do this sort of thing all the time. And yes, people with unhealthy or dangerous lifestyles should pay more.
If you own a horse, and maybe ride it - you're required to have 3rd party insurance. It's pennies if you join the relevant horse club.
Whilst the NHS is there and paid for by every tax payer - if you want to be fixed sooner, then paying a bit as part of a group scheme seems very sensible to me.
I was offering an example of a pastime where it was covered for a very small insurance sum because it was a mass activity.
Why don't you provide the data to support your argument than ask me for it?
Because it was your suggestion?
If you havent figured out that I am presenting a counter-argument (that your idea is a bad one) then I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that.
No you've disagreed with me and offered no evidence that contradicts mine.
This is a very tired line of yours - I've regularly asked you for evidence for your assertions and you just ignore it. I assume its because you don't want to be quoted on it. Well that's super for arse-covering but meanlingless for the rest of us.
No you've disagreed with me and offered no evidence that contradicts mine.
You've suggested something and I've asked questions about the impact it would have. No-one's forcing you to answer. I'll just assume you havent thought it through very well.
No you've disagreed with me and offered no evidence that contradicts mine.
You've suggested something and I've asked questions about the impact it would have. No-one's forcing you to answer. I'll just assume you havent thought it through very well.
It's not my job to provide you with an argument - go on - provide one. I gave an example of a group that pays v little for insurance because they use a club scheme. That its horses and 3rd party insurance is immaterial - its an EXAMPLE.
As I suggested, if private gyms offered an additional sub for PMI for injuries, I'd expect it would have a good take up if priced attractively.
Fair enough, you made a suggestion, I thought you might want to defend it against some apparent flaws, you obviously dont, no problem, no-one's going to make you.
No you've disagreed with me and offered no evidence that contradicts mine.
You've suggested something and I've asked questions about the impact it would have. No-one's forcing you to answer. I'll just assume you havent thought it through very well.
It's not my job to provide you with an argument - go on - provide one. I gave an example of a group that pays v little for insurance because they use a club scheme. That its horses and 3rd party insurance is immaterial - its an EXAMPLE.
As I suggested, if private gyms offered an additional sub for PMI for injuries, I'd expect it would have a good take up if priced attractively.
A tricky nut to crack - but there's obviously more we could do
"A review of the way prisoners are allowed out of jail on day release is under way after a catalogue of crimes committed by offenders while out on temporary licence...In 2011, a convicted killer carried out 11 armed raids on bookmakers while on day release. Joseph Williams, 52, was allowed temporary leave from Blantyre House open prison, in Kent, in preparation for permanent release from his life sentence. The gambling addict took advantage of lax supervision to go on a robbery spree over six months, netting him £3,300 to pay for his habit.
Mark Neville, a convicted drug dealer, ran a £14 million cocaine smuggling racket while on day release from Kirkham open prison in Lancashire. He was serving eight years for a plot to smuggle heroin in Britain but was allowed out to run a second-hand goods store, which was used as a front to import cocaine hidden inside furniture shipped from Germany.
He was jailed for 26 years in 2010 after being found guilty of conspiracy to import Class A and Class B drugs. In another case, police are still searching for a prisoner who failed to return to Ford open prison in West Sussex after being released on temporary licence..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3826872.ece
Hoogstraten is a piece of work. He served four years for arson on a synagogue, and more time for handling stolen goods.
My understanding is that is not accurate. Hoogstraten threw a grenade into the home of a man who owed him money. The man happened to be a Jew, and a rabbi to boot. The premises were not a synagogue.
A tricky nut to crack - but there's obviously more we could do
"A review of the way prisoners are allowed out of jail on day release is under way after a catalogue of crimes committed by offenders while out on temporary licence...In 2011, a convicted killer carried out 11 armed raids on bookmakers while on day release. Joseph Williams, 52, was allowed temporary leave from Blantyre House open prison, in Kent, in preparation for permanent release from his life sentence. The gambling addict took advantage of lax supervision to go on a robbery spree over six months, netting him £3,300 to pay for his habit.
Mark Neville, a convicted drug dealer, ran a £14 million cocaine smuggling racket while on day release from Kirkham open prison in Lancashire. He was serving eight years for a plot to smuggle heroin in Britain but was allowed out to run a second-hand goods store, which was used as a front to import cocaine hidden inside furniture shipped from Germany.
He was jailed for 26 years in 2010 after being found guilty of conspiracy to import Class A and Class B drugs. In another case, police are still searching for a prisoner who failed to return to Ford open prison in West Sussex after being released on temporary licence..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3826872.ece
Just shows how far away from being 'rehabilitated' they were despite being thought worthy of day release
Almost all insurance is a bad value, take your chances
That's true in as far as it goes - insurance companies make profits, they pay out less than they take in premiums. But surely it makes sense to insure against a possible catastrophic risk - I don't want to have to fund the reinstatement of my house and contents after a fire. Whereas I don't have boiler insurance, as I can fund boiler repair out of current resources.
In Australia, new Galaxy poll has the ALP and Coalition tied.
Two-party preferred at 50-50, from primary votes of 40% for Labor and 44% for the Coalition. This compares with a 51-49 lead for the Coalition at the last such poll four weeks ago, with Labor up two on the primary vote and the Coalition steady.
I know I'm a bit thick, but I can't understand the argument you are making!?
I'm not arguing anything political, or anti-nationalisation, or pro-privatisation, I'm basically saying that sport participation is a good thing, most good sportspeople who get hurt will get their op done privately (because it is in their career interests), operations are getting better and cleverer, and perhaps it'd be a good thing to encourage cheaper sports-related insurance schemes. End result: fitter population, less tragically early endings of careers, less congestion on NHS waiting lists, better outcomes for sports teams. Win, win, win, win (and less profits, but wider take-up of private health schemes, so neutral there).
What the feck this has to do with people on sofas eating crisps is beyond me? They have every right to do that, just as smokers, drinkers and tombstoners have every right to do what they do. But in an age where we are chasing sporting take-up and sporting excellence, they aren't really relevant are they?
I suppose I'm arguing that in its current guise the NHS is not conducive with being a sports therapy clinic. So let's make nice and do something to square that.
It would be unhealthy if party policy was open to manipulation by the financial power of backers
Surely we can mitigate against this by making all party funding open to scrutiny? Then I as a voter can decide whether I like it or not. For example, I have no problem with the Labour party being funded by the Unions, it was set up by the Unions to promote their interests. However I would like to know which unions fund it, by how much, and ideally whether that funding has any strings attached.
" A 32-stone convicted murderer spared execution after lawyers argued he was too fat to be put to death has died in prison.
Ronald Post was to have been given a lethal injection in January after spending spent 28 years on death row for the 1983 killing of a hotel worker.
But a month before the death sentence was carried out his lawyers successfully argued that because of his immense size the method would take 16 hours to work and be “torturous and lingering”.
I know I'm a bit thick, but I can't understand the argument you are making!?
I'm not arguing anything political, or anti-nationalisation, or pro-privatisation, I'm basically saying that sport participation is a good thing, most good sportspeople who get hurt will get their op done privately (because it is in their career interests), operations are getting better and cleverer, and perhaps it'd be a good thing to encourage cheaper sports-related insurance schemes. End result: fitter population, less tragically early endings of careers, less congestion on NHS waiting lists, better outcomes for sports teams. Win, win, win, win (and less profits, but wider take-up of private health schemes, so neutral there).
What the feck this has to do with people on sofas eating crisps is beyond me? They have every right to do that, just as smokers, drinkers and tombstoners have every right to do what they do. But in an age where we are chasing sporting take-up and sporting excellence, they aren't really relevant are they?
I suppose I'm arguing that in its current guise the NHS is not conducive with being a sports therapy clinic. So let's make nice and do something to square that.
When I was a gym rat and spent 20 hours a week at my local David Lloyd club - I'd be happy to fork out for enhanced PMI if I injured myself whilst pushing my body to the limit.
And your average Sunday league football club ... what proportion of them would fold if all members were forced to pay for health insurance? And what would the point of driving people away from sport and exercise be?
I would never suggest coercion, I would suggest incentivising. A 35 year old Sunday League fooballer probably wouldn't give a monkeys if he tore his cruciate. He'd retire and probably never get it fixed (another issue, because the country is littered with people who didn't fix their injuries and will go on to need knee replacements). But a 19 year old with genuine talent and ambition could be ruined by having no insurance, and having to wait 12 months for an MRI scan, and longer for an op, with no serious post-op rehab.
I believe someone similarly overweight escaped hanging in Washington State because the process would have probably ripped his head off and the court decided it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. However in this case they put him to death by lethal injection instead. Maybe he should have gone with decapitation... although American hangmen were notoriously incompetent and maybe wouldn't have managed it efficiently.
I know I'm a bit thick, but I can't understand the argument you are making!?
I'm arguing that if you want to insure health risks due to them costing the NHS money that very last place you start forcing people to take out insurance is sports clubs. People who are active cost the NHS much less than people sat on sofas, so even if you accept the insurance argument it makes sense to force the sedentary to insure themselves before the sporting.
Fair enough, but I'd never force anyone to do anything. I'm super liberal on these issues.
I'm just suggesting that this country probably loses loads of sporting talent to unfixed injuries, and incentivising clubs to insure players would be a good thing. Not all would do it, of course they wouldn't, and I'd never force them.
My insurance costs me about £70 a month and I've had seven operations in total (six were sport related) - I continued the insurance in my own name when the club stopped my contract and I'm covered for most things. I don't need the insurance now because I'm taken up crisp eating myself in retirement (I don't really know why I pay it? Scared of tempting fate by cancelling, I suppose..). That's a big financial loss, but given that I LOVED being part of rugby, and having the ops extended my career by about nine years, I definitely think it was worth it.
Incidentally, my next op will be a more personal one, and I'm having it done on the NHS (this is one of those ops you'd want to delay, as a bloke). My referral letter and demonstration DVD turned up this morning, just in case I have second thoughts. It's deep breath and face up my responsibilities or risk having more kids.... I'm not looking forward to it!
The whole death penalty thing is fascinating. Which states do it, the very lengthy appeals process, the apparent bias against blacks et al.
I'm a tad pro-DP - if the evidence is overwhelming - do it. There are the Harold Shipman or Fred West types who killed themselves in prison instead. The evidence against them was complete.
If a prisoner wants to top themselves - frankly let them. Joe Public can do it. Choosing to end your own life is the ultimate decision. Some think this is cowardly or not giving victims justice - I disagree. If the killer is dead, he's dead - letting him live watching Sky for 30yrs seems odd.
I believe someone similarly overweight escaped hanging in Washington State because the process would have probably ripped his head off and the court decided it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. However in this case they put him to death by lethal injection instead. Maybe he should have gone with decapitation... although American hangmen were notoriously incompetent and maybe wouldn't have managed it efficiently.
The conservatives pinched a seat from the lib dems in Kingston on Thursday with an 8% swing, which set me to wondering if Ed Davey might be vulnerable next time around.
he has an 8,000 majority but in government is coming across as ed windmills. Plus the lib dems might lose left orientated votes to labour.
I asked the other day if there was a league table of by-election results since LE2013 - it'd be really helpful to know the trend rather than the odd ward result or two.
From "the other place" - There have now been 44 by-elections since the main May elections with 20 (45%) changing hands: - Conservatives have gained 2 seats but lost 11, 6 to Labour, 2 each to Lib Dems and Independents and 1 to UKIP - Labour have gained 8 seats, 6 from Conservatives, 1 Green and 1 SNP, whilst losing a seat to UKIP - Lib Dems have gained 2 seats from Conservatives whilst losing 1 each to Conservatives, UKIP and Independent - Greens lost both seats defended, 1 to Labour and 1 to a Residents Association - UKIP gained 3 seats, 1 each from Conservative, Labour and Lib Dems, whilst losing a seat to Health Concern - SNP lost 1 seat to Labour - Health Concern gained 1 seat from UKIP - Whitwell Residents Association gained 1 seat from a Green, who did not defend the seat - Independents gained 3 seats, 2 from Conservatives and 1 from Lib Dem, who did not contest the seat, whilst losing 1 to a Conservative
LOL! I am a bit worried, and it is very final. But the wife can't risk getting pregnant after the last, awkward birth, having an abortion is NOT an option (she wouldn't do it, not now she has kids) , so all eyes are on me....
The conservatives pinched a seat from the lib dems in Kingston on Thursday with an 8% swing, which set me to wondering if Ed Davey might be vulnerable next time around.
he has an 8,000 majority but in government is coming across as ed windmills. Plus the lib dems might lose left orientated votes to labour.
I asked the other day if there was a league table of by-election results since LE2013 - it'd be really helpful to know the trend rather than the odd ward result or two.
From "the other place" - There have now been 44 by-elections since the main May elections with 20 (45%) changing hands: - Conservatives have gained 2 seats but lost 11, 6 to Labour, 2 each to Lib Dems and Independents and 1 to UKIP - Labour have gained 8 seats, 6 from Conservatives, 1 Green and 1 SNP, whilst losing a seat to UKIP - Lib Dems have gained 2 seats from Conservatives whilst losing 1 each to Conservatives, UKIP and Independent - Greens lost both seats defended, 1 to Labour and 1 to a Residents Association - UKIP gained 3 seats, 1 each from Conservative, Labour and Lib Dems, whilst losing a seat to Health Concern - SNP lost 1 seat to Labour - Health Concern gained 1 seat from UKIP - Whitwell Residents Association gained 1 seat from a Green, who did not defend the seat - Independents gained 3 seats, 2 from Conservatives and 1 from Lib Dem, who did not contest the seat, whilst losing 1 to a Conservative
Charles - In terms of landmass the UK may be the size of Oregon, in terms of population we would be by far the largest US state, California, the most populous state, has a population of 38 million, the UK has almost double that at 63 million
On Thead - I don't see a need for Cameron and the tories to do anything to help dig Miliband out of a huge hole of his own making.
In a panic after getting kicked about in PMQs, Miliband responded by voluntarily unilaterally cutting off Labour's main source of funding leaving him with the option of a hugely embarrasing U-turn or the loss of millions of funding every year. Cameron is under no obligation to follow suit and curtail his own party's funding and will not lose a single vote if he doesn't. Those who care already know about tory funding, those who don't care don't care.
Going forward, it's an obvious open goal at election time to demonstrate that Labour have not learned the economic lesson in that their own finances will be a shambles and they will be running a massive structural deficit. Or they could U-turn and leave union funding alone, or accept massive personal donations to make up the shortfall.
Huge downside and no upside whatever Miliband does from here and all because he couldn't take some flak at PMQs along with a few days of bad headlines.
"Those opposed to the current level of immigration into Britain tend to divide into two main groups. The first consists of those who believe that it reinforces a change in the character of the country for the worse: most members of this group will be relatively old and (generally) white. The second is made up of those who are less unhappy about immigration per se, but very critical of the pressure which current levels - and those experienced during the New Labour years - place on housing, public services and jobs. It consists of people from all ethnic backgrounds.
The first group will not be persuaded by any claim that the Government makes. The second are perhaps more biddable - but this morning's papers show how steep the mountainside is that Theresa May has to climb. The Financial Times reports that Ministers intend to press ahead with a trial scheme to make visitors from six countries, including India and Nigeria, pay a £3000 tourist bond. And the Daily Telegraph claims that doctors could be forced to carry out immigration checks on patients. The Home Office is pressing on - having already cut net immigration by a third. (Gross immigration is at its lowest since 2001.)
But look at the bigger, bolder headlines in some of the other papers. The Daily Mail splashes with census figures apparently showing that 500,000 migrants have been given social housing in the last decade. The Daily Express, like other papers, contrasts the urging of Matthew Hancock, the Business Minister, that British firms employ British workers with the high rate of advertising for some of those same jobs by the EU. "UK jobs up for grabs total more than those in other EU states put together," the paper says. And Nick Clegg, doubtless under pressure from his own party, is fighting back against those Home Office vans telling illegal immigrants to go home or face arrest..." http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/07/how-can-theresa-may-persuade-voters-that-net-immigration-really-has-been-cut-by-a-third.html
It would be unhealthy if party policy was open to manipulation by the financial power of backers
Surely we can mitigate against this by making all party funding open to scrutiny? Then I as a voter can decide whether I like it or not. For example, I have no problem with the Labour party being funded by the Unions, it was set up by the Unions to promote their interests. However I would like to know which unions fund it, by how much, and ideally whether that funding has any strings attached.
I think the problem with that approach (if there are no other limits) is that most voters have limited information - the press are not very interested in digging out all the details that individual X or organisation Y gave £20,000 to party Z in constituency A. In theory the voters could dig for the information on the Electoral Commission website, but a system dependent on 40 million people doing extensive research is not realistic, and even then the situation is not that transparent - so XYZ gave party Z some money, but why and what did they want for it?
In reply to your specific point - in my experience unions contribute to Labour MPs' constituencies without trying to micromanage what you do with the money or what positions you take on various issues, but if you are consistently opposed to the union's view they may eventually cut your funding - they don't lean on you to threaten to do it, they just do it. When I was an MP, my CLP used to get enough money from UNITE to pay for two constituency newsletters a year, then they had a review and decided I wasn't especially notable in promoting UNITE issues so they reduced the funding to one newsletter and I think increased it for someone whose views seemed closer to theirs. I didn't see anything very objectionable in any of that, nor did I get worked up about my opponent getting money from some friends who liked her views, and the Ashcroft assistance which initially annoyed me was neatly balanced by people who gave money to me by way of objecting to Ashcroft.
The issue, then, is not that it's evil for people to give parties money, but that if uses for money get out of hand (the extreme exapmle being US-style media ads), the system will be tilted to benefit parties with rich friends. That's why I think it's the demand side more than the supply side that needs to be tackled.
Just had a Labour Councillor knock on my door and ask if we had any local issues like street lights etc to discuss, said no. Then asked how I normally vote and politely said Conservative, he asked if that was every time and I said yes and he replied "oh, well you probably won't hear from us again".
Never had a politician actually knock on my door before. As far as I know there's no local by-elections or anything else coming up either ... though my seat is Warrington South one of the most marginal Conservative-held seats so they could be preparing early for the next election. Thought it was interesting.
EDIT: Also of note is that my house is part of a pretty big new estate. Everyone in our part of the estate would have moved in after the last election and the final occupants would have moved in over the last few weeks (we were one of the first late 2010). So they were probably lacking in data on how people here normally vote.
It would be unhealthy if party policy was open to manipulation by the financial power of backers
Surely we can mitigate against this by making all party funding open to scrutiny? Then I as a voter can decide whether I like it or not. For example, I have no problem with the Labour party being funded by the Unions, it was set up by the Unions to promote their interests. However I would like to know which unions fund it, by how much, and ideally whether that funding has any strings attached.
I think the problem with that approach (if there are no other limits) is that most voters have limited information - the press are not very interested in digging out all the details that individual X or organisation Y gave £20,000 to party Z in constituency A. In theory the voters could dig for the information on the Electoral Commission website, but a system dependent on 40 million people doing extensive research is not realistic, and even then the situation is not that transparent - so XYZ gave party Z some money, but why and what did they want for it?
Maybe there could be better systems to give you that information. I liked the US proposal that congress people should have to wear the corporate logos of the people who funded them, like racing drivers. But it would also be good to make it available when you vote. I guess this will be easier when we eventually end up voting online; You can show the logos right there on the voting screen, and the detail will only be a click away.
I think the problem with that approach (if there are no other limits) is that most voters have limited information - the press are not very interested in digging out all the details that individual X or organisation Y gave £20,000 to party Z in constituency A.
The press seems quite assiduous in digging out and publicising details of donors who might be deemed dodgy in some way, or to be expecting an undue influence on policy. And of course opposing political parties will, as well.
The two approaches aren't mutually exclusive: we could have donation limits and complete transparency.
In any case, what would be wrong with a multimillionaire wanting to set up and fund a political party to promote the political views he happens to believe in?
Donald Trump has long resisted calls for him to run for president. But now, at age 67, he tells me he’s considering a bid. “I’m looking,” Trump says. “I have a large following of people who are tired of seeing this country ripped off, and taken advantage of [by] everyone who does business with us. We used to be the smart one of the block, and now we’re the dummies on the block. They want to see me, and I want to see them.” Trump cautions that it’s early. But for the first time in his life, he’s preparing to potentially put his business work on hold. Behind the scenes, he’s examining how his family could manage his operations on an interim basis, should he decide to run. “From a business standpoint, I have fabulous children who I’ve taken into the business,” Trump explains. “They know what they’re doing. So the business wouldn’t be the thing that stops me.” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354535/trump-heads-iowa-plots-2016-run-robert-costa
The government wants us to offer filtering as an option, so we offer an active choice when you sign up, you choose one of two options:-
Unfiltered Internet access - no filtering of any content within the A&A network - you are responsible for any filtering in your own network, or Censored Internet access - restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) - but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn. If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered.
Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron?
I think the problem with that approach (if there are no other limits) is that most voters have limited information - the press are not very interested in digging out all the details that individual X or organisation Y gave £20,000 to party Z in constituency A.
The press seems quite assiduous in digging out and publicising details of donors who might be deemed dodgy in some way, or to be expecting an undue influence on policy. And of course opposing political parties will, as well.
It doesn't really work in practice in countries like the US where spending limits don't work. After a few stories people get numb to them and you move the definition of "normal", and nobody will bother to report typical everyday corruption.
LOL! I am a bit worried, and it is very final. But the wife can't risk getting pregnant after the last, awkward birth, having an abortion is NOT an option (she wouldn't do it, not now she has kids) , so all eyes are on me....
Almost all insurance is a bad value, take your chances
That's true in as far as it goes - insurance companies make profits, they pay out less than they take in premiums. But surely it makes sense to insure against a possible catastrophic risk - I don't want to have to fund the reinstatement of my house and contents after a fire. Whereas I don't have boiler insurance, as I can fund boiler repair out of current resources.
Yes I agree on catastrophic risk. same as I have a quid on the lottery despite knowing it is no value... It would be a catastrophe if my numbers came out and I wasn't on!
You were wondering why the Tories ended up canvassing the dead during the Eastleigh by election? Grant Shapps and a shrinking membership, that's why.
They also seem to have been smitten by the same conservative "buy technology from dodgy bastards who don't understand computers but know the right buzzwords" tradition that finished off Mitt Romney, in a purchasing decision that probably pre-dates Shapps.
Fenster..I have no idea if a study has been made to see if there is a higher incidence at a younger age of Vasectomy patients developing Prostate cancer. It may be worth checking out.
I think the problem with that approach (if there are no other limits) is that most voters have limited information - the press are not very interested in digging out all the details that individual X or organisation Y gave £20,000 to party Z in constituency A.
The press seems quite assiduous in digging out and publicising details of donors who might be deemed dodgy in some way, or to be expecting an undue influence on policy. And of course opposing political parties will, as well.
The two approaches aren't mutually exclusive: we could have donation limits and complete transparency.
In any case, what would be wrong with a multimillionaire wanting to set up and fund a political party to promote the political views he happens to believe in?
Agreed with EiT on media vigilance - also, it's random, partial, occasional, and can sometimes be intimidated.
I don't mind multimillionaires setting up parties that they like (Goldsmith is the obvious recent example), but I'd like to see a reasonably balanced range of local information. One way to help, almost as unpopular as state funding, would be a marked increase in mandatory TV coverage - PPBs, question times, etc.
Genuine question to clarify: do we agree on the general objective that people with only average interest in politics should get a roughly balanced picture of what their local candidates stand for? Or do you feel that this is an appropriate area for the free market? - if I have more money, I get the lion's share of local coverage?
O/T: Agree with Hague on this - precisely because we mostly sympathise with the secular side, it's especially important that we condemn this kind of slaughter of people on the other side. Otherwise, how can we expect them to be remotely interested in in our idea of democracy?
WRT to party funding. I work for a haulage company. While I have no idea what the boss's politics are. What is to stop him emblazoning his 25 lorries (and therefore mobile advertising hoardings) with 'Vote Party X'? Even if the party concerned didn't want his endorsement and had publicly said that we don't want the support of Haulage firm Y. Or false front organisations being set up to say 'BNP say vote Tory/UKIP' or 'ALF say vote Labour/ LD'
WRT to party funding. I work for a haulage company. While I have no idea what the boss's politics are. What is to stop him emblazoning his 25 lorries (and therefore mobile advertising hoardings) with 'Vote Party X'? Even if the party concerned didn't want his endorsement and had publicly said that we don't want the support of Haulage firm Y. Or false front organisations being set up to say 'BNP say vote Tory/UKIP' or 'ALF say vote Labour/ LD'
A good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
I have another question that I daresay one of the PB brains trust can answer. In the deepest, darkest recesses of my memory there resides a snippet of information. It is that in Victorian times a factory or mine owner tried to coerce his employees to vote a certain way. After this, the law was changed to prevent such coercion. Yorkshire comes to mind, but again that might well be wrong.
Is this just a false memory, or did it really happen?
Wasn't that the reason for the secret ballot being introduced, to prevent such abuses? Postal votes would be a convenient way round it. "If you don't bring your postal vote in to work you will be managed out of the business etc"
WRT to party funding. I work for a haulage company. While I have no idea what the boss's politics are. What is to stop him emblazoning his 25 lorries (and therefore mobile advertising hoardings) with 'Vote Party X'? Even if the party concerned didn't want his endorsement and had publicly said that we don't want the support of Haulage firm Y. Or false front organisations being set up to say 'BNP say vote Tory/UKIP' or 'ALF say vote Labour/ LD'
A good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
I have another question that I daresay one of the PB brains trust can answer. In the deepest, darkest recesses of my memory there resides a snippet of information. It is that in Victorian times a factory or mine owner tried to coerce his employees to vote a certain way. After this, the law was changed to prevent such coercion. Yorkshire comes to mind, but again that might well be wrong.
Is this just a false memory, or did it really happen?
Wasn't that the reason for the secret ballot being introduced, to prevent such abuses? Postal votes would be a convenient way round it. "If you don't bring your postal vote in to work you will be managed out of the business etc"
WRT to party funding. I work for a haulage company. While I have no idea what the boss's politics are. What is to stop him emblazoning his 25 lorries (and therefore mobile advertising hoardings) with 'Vote Party X'? Even if the party concerned didn't want his endorsement and had publicly said that we don't want the support of Haulage firm Y. Or false front organisations being set up to say 'BNP say vote Tory/UKIP' or 'ALF say vote Labour/ LD'
A good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
I have another question that I daresay one of the PB brains trust can answer. In the deepest, darkest recesses of my memory there resides a snippet of information. It is that in Victorian times a factory or mine owner tried to coerce his employees to vote a certain way. After this, the law was changed to prevent such coercion. Yorkshire comes to mind, but again that might well be wrong.
Is this just a false memory, or did it really happen?
Or require employees to sneak a photo of their regular walk-in ballot, 19th Century voting security technology isn't hard to beat with 21st century equipment.
I am always a bit nervous about "balance", as that can be a way of enforcing the status quo, eg not allowing Nigel Farage to be on the leaders' debate because UKIP only scored 3% last time. And if a major news story blew up about one of the parties you wouldn't expect balance. But the US system where billions are squandered on political advertising seems pointless. So I suppose I would stick with the status quo.
Wasn't that the reason for the secret ballot being introduced, to prevent such abuses? Postal votes would be a convenient way round it. "If you don't bring your postal vote in to work you will be managed out of the business etc"
WRT to party funding. I work for a haulage company. While I have no idea what the boss's politics are. What is to stop him emblazoning his 25 lorries (and therefore mobile advertising hoardings) with 'Vote Party X'? Even if the party concerned didn't want his endorsement and had publicly said that we don't want the support of Haulage firm Y. Or false front organisations being set up to say 'BNP say vote Tory/UKIP' or 'ALF say vote Labour/ LD'
A good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
I have another question that I daresay one of the PB brains trust can answer. In the deepest, darkest recesses of my memory there resides a snippet of information. It is that in Victorian times a factory or mine owner tried to coerce his employees to vote a certain way. After this, the law was changed to prevent such coercion. Yorkshire comes to mind, but again that might well be wrong.
Is this just a false memory, or did it really happen?
It's just that I recall reading a book years ago that mentioned a specific awful case that they claimed led to the legislation. I just can't remember where it was, or even if I'm confused. As usual... ;-)
In 1872 the Secret Ballot Act was passed. This was a very important development as up to 1872, elections had been in public and voters had to vote in public - as commented by Charles Dickens in "Pickwick Papers". This left the system very open to abuse as the person voting might rent a house from a potential MP. If that person voted 'incorrectly' he might be evicted from the home he rented. Everybody would know who he voted for. The act of 1872 stopped this absurd abuse and brought in secret voting - men voted behind a curtain so no-one would ever know who he voted for.
In 1872 the Secret Ballot Act was passed. This was a very important development as up to 1872, elections had been in public and voters had to vote in public - as commented by Charles Dickens in "Pickwick Papers". This left the system very open to abuse as the person voting might rent a house from a potential MP. If that person voted 'incorrectly' he might be evicted from the home he rented. Everybody would know who he voted for. The act of 1872 stopped this absurd abuse and brought in secret voting - men voted behind a curtain so no-one would ever know who he voted for.
It took about a century for Trade Unions to catch up.
Annoyed with myself for not backing Grosjean to be top 3. Oh well.
Anyway, I've laid Rosberg to be top 6. I suspect the Mercedes will eat its tyres (worth recalling too that high temperatures decrease reliability, and that could be a factor as well).
Comments
I'm sure Owen Jones donated his pocket money to Labour.
Actually Tim, What you want has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness or openness . What you want is the formula that will damage the Tories the most , so why not just be open about it.
If it is what you really want then you haven't thought it through. A lower cap is more likely to lead to the kind of rule-bending / outright fraud you so casually assumed downthread.
Using third parties to make donations on an individual's behalf should be an offence, whether within a family or anywhere else. Of course, if four adults, acting freely, wish to make large donations with their own money all to the same place, they should be able to do so. But those conditions must apply.
I've had five knee operations, including two ACL (cruciate ligament) reconstructions, all done privately. I was insured through the rugby club. I'm retired now!
Our club currently has two players recovering from ACL repairs and one boy going in in August to be reconstructed. All private.
I had a small cartilage op back about 10 years ago and was running within a week. I played a game within a month.
Knee ops among sportspeople are so common these days (my father tore his cruciate back in the 70s and it ended his career, because the ingenuity to fix it wasn't there back then) and it begs the question: should the NHS be concentrating on the likes of me, who get fixed then go back out and break it again? The answer is probably no.
I've long argued that sports clubs should privately insure their players; we now insure all of ours, and it costs a fortune. Surely there could be a scheme dreamt up whereby sports clubs are encouraged/incentivised to insure all their members with cheaper schemes: perhaps a deal can be done via government/health insurance companies. It would take lots of pressure off the NHS and enhance the sporting chances of young people with nasty injuries.
Waiting on the NHS for years to be fixed is no good to anybody who wants a career in sport, at whatever level.
Many social workers lack confidence and know-how when it comes to dealing with online grooming and sexual abuse of children, a survey has suggested.
The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) said they desperately needed specialist training.
An online survey of 327 social workers found 74% wanted more support, while half felt concerned about dealing with online sexual abuse or behaviour.
One said social workers were "way out" of their depth.
Almost three in four of those surveyed said they needed more support with child protection cases which involved "an aspect of online and complex sexual abuse".
The survey also found:
17% did not know how to "assess the risks" to a child when there was an "online dimension", such as internet grooming, to the case
20% said they did not know the "warning signs" of what online sexual abuse looks like
43% lacked confidence about the language used by young people talking about the internet, and more than a third said they did not know the right questions to ask in order to identify and assess online abuse
"The number of cases in which the internet plays a part in the grooming and abuse of children is rising," said the BASW's Nushra Mansuri.
"Social workers need to be equipped to recognise the warning signs."
One of the social workers, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: "I have worked with a young girl who experienced horrendous sexual and violent threats via her mobile phone... and it was very difficult to know how best to proceed."
Another said: "We are way out of our depth and training measures are needed without delay."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23471982
"The verdict was met with amazement across the US: a court declaring it was perfectly legal for an Iowa dentist to sack his otherwise exemplary assistant because he found her irresistibly attractive.
Now, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to uphold its ruling for the second time has met with a national outcry, with some legal experts warning that the case could open the door to broader discrimination in the workplace. Following ten years in the job, Melissa Nelson was fired after her married boss said he was worried he would try to start an affair with her.
...After rejecting her claim in December, the court took the rare step of retracting its decision, only to reinstate its ruling earlier this month, arguing that Dr Knight was “driven entirely by individual feelings and emotions regarding a specific person”. She was not fired because of her gender, it said, but because Dr Knight and his wife felt she posed a threat to their marriage. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3826657.ece
you are doing what you often do, put words in other people's mouths. AFAICR , I didn't make any comment about union funding,
The obvious thing to do is to limit the ways you can usefully spend, to the point where parties can easily get enough money and don't get much benefit from selling out and raising more. In principle limiting spending sounds hard, because people can think of creative ways to affect the campaign without being counted as the party's spending, but in practice it seems to work pretty well in the UK.
If spending is somewhat limited, limiting donations could actually make the problem worse if it reduces the parties' income to well below what they could usefully spend, because they have to work harder to get the money they need. If that happens I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to public funds on principle, but if the thing can be done without them that's better, especially as the politicians would ultimately be in control of how much to fund themselves, which has a lot of potential for shennanigans.
http://nottspolitics.org/2013/07/27/public-care-about-source-of-mps-second-incomes/
That's not to say there shouldn't be spending limits: there should. Indeed, the limits would do well to apply between elections as well as during them. Yes, I know - Ashcroft, blah, blah. You work within the rules you're given and if Labour didn't like Ashcroft's spending then more fool them for changing the rules in a way that made it easier rather than harder to make localised unlimited spend.
Requiring sports clubs to pay for PMI is a valid argument. I can only sympathise with your knee problems. I experienced this a little after bad rowing form - it killed and I used dozens of Nurofen gel tubes to dull my hobbling pain.
After I corrected my action, I was fine - but it took weeks. Having knees under the knife must be horrid. I've a sore elbow now and everything seems to set it off.
I know that in many states of the US that people are paid every two weeks (including those we would call salaried) and that notice period is two weeks. AFAIK in many states a valid reason does not have to be given.
We do not have a detailed programme for what a UKIP chancellor would do in his first 100 days in office? That is true. Equally, that is true of all the parties. And maybe we will not, as the date of the next GE nears. We try to be a practical rather a theoretical party.
We aim for as 'small govt' as possible. We are keen to look both outwards and inwards, and happy to have trading and political relationship both with Europe and and the rest of the world. We are intinctively against the bureacratic, and often corrupt, interference beloved by all supra-national institutions.
We recognise that the costs of high levels of recent immigration are social rather than economic.
A political party is legal. In fact, their partisans will tell us what a vital part of the political system they are. From a libertarian point of view, what argument is there to prevent people from giving their own money to a legal and useful body?
I would say - anyone can donate whatever amount to a political party. However, to allow we the voters to decide whether the parties are being funded from reasonable sources, all party funding streams of any value should be published on the internet. A spreadsheet on Google Documents would do the trick.
I would probably add that for all corporate bodies, there should be a vote of members (union members, shareholders) for every and each donation to a political party.
When I mentioned knee operations,I meant Total Knee Replacements where your knee joint is replaced by a metal hinge joint.This is generally for older people who have arthritis due to wear and tear.Once painkillers have been used for a few years,they don`t work and there is little alternative to surgery.
Principal Authority results summary for 2013 up to 20 June
Defender
Winner ________________________________________
| Con Lab LDem SNP Plaid Other Total won
Con 56 3 5 - - - 64 (-21)
Lab 8 58 3 2 - 1 72 (+9)
LD 6 1 16 - - 1 24 (-3)
SNP - - - - - - 0 (-3)
Plaid - - - - - - 0 (+0)
Other 15 1 3 1 - 8 28 (+18)
Total 85 63 27 3 0 10 188
Five poll averages (since the graph is not up to today): Labour lead, 5.4%, Lab 38.6%, Con 33.2%.
Got a few potential bets in mind. Have to wait for the markets to get going a bit, though.
That seems a lucrative additional membership tick box for private gyms - their members are already paying for the experience/facilities.
This issue really needs an independent commission with an explicit mandate to find ways of reducing spending that do not clearly disadvatnage any party - we are all hopelessly biased. A system of successive reforms alternately aimed at screwing whoever is in opposition at the time is unstable and clearly undesirable, much like American boundary mainpulation.
"This issue really needs an independent commission with an explicit mandate to find ways of reducing spending that do not clearly disadvatnage any party - we are all hopelessly biased. A system of successive reforms alternately aimed at screwing whoever is in opposition at the time is unstable and clearly undesirable, much like American boundary mainpulation."
I completely agree - however we've seen with stuff like Leveson - one can still pack the deck.
Whilst the NHS is there and paid for by every tax payer - if you want to be fixed sooner, then paying a bit as part of a group scheme seems very sensible to me.
The NHS is tacitly pushing sportspeople towards private health anyway. Getting an ACL reconstruction on the NHS takes forever (I had my first consultation referral letter arrive after I was back playing, some nine or ten months later); if the NHS really did want to do all these sports ops themselves they would do them quicker.
But promising to repair all non-life-threatening ankle tears, knee tears, neck and shoulder bangs etc within 12 weeks wouldn't be in their interests would it? It would mean clubs like ours would scrap the insurance, save the £20k or so and have it done within 12 weeks on the NHS.
The NHS knows what it's doing in this field.
The LDs are down as are the Tories. I was under the impression on this site that the LDs were holding their position. Tories have lost more - but they've oodles more seats.
Hmmm.
Principal Authority results summary for 2013 up to 20 June
Defender
Winner ________________________________________
| Con Lab LDem SNP Plaid Other Total won
Con 56 3 5 - - - 64 (-21)
Lab 8 58 3 2 - 1 72 (+9)
LD 6 1 16 - - 1 24 (-3)
SNP - - - - - - 0 (-3)
Plaid - - - - - - 0 (+0)
Other 15 1 3 1 - 8 28 (+18)
Total 85 63 27 3 0 10 188
Betting PostBacked Grosjean for pole at 10, hedged at 4. More on that and pre-qualifying stuff here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/hungary-pre-qualifying.html
The NHS are encouraging sportspeople to go private anyway, by handing out ridiculous waiting times for non-life-threatening ops like ankle or knee ruptures.
It wouldn't be in their interests to promise all sports ops to be fixed within, say, 12 weeks. Sports clubs like ours would then scrap the bill for insurance and wait on the NHS.
I can't blame the NHS, the more people who are pushed private to save their careers the better it is for them. All I'm arguing is that sport is a good thing, the healthy lifestyles that surround sport are a good thing, injuries are an unfortunate by-product, and if we are to encourage more sport and more sporting excellence we could think up a clever way of a) encouraging sports clubs to insure players, and b) getting good, injured sportspeople back on playing fields quicker.
I certainly don't want legislation around this, just better use of resources.
On the subject of party funding and as someone who contributes to a political party every month, there's an impossible circle to square between the right of people to give whatever they choose to a political party of their choice whenever they like and the concern that parties and by inference the political process can be bought and sold by the activities of a very few very significant contributors.
It would be unhealthy if party policy was open to manipulation by the financial power of backers and all parties are arguably susceptible to this since parties themselves should in my view be paragons of democratic virtue glowing in the light of transparency and propriety (which we probably can all agree they aren't).
Parties of course function on two key commodities - money and time. Most people in most parties are volunteers - they do it because they want to. The truth is that in a complex modern society traditional political structures only work if you have mass membership movements but to function as modern political entities parties don't need or want a thousand people paying a £1 a year to join but prefer ten people paying £100 a year because that's easier to administer. The problem comes when you lose one of the ten.
I don't have any answers - the current system isn't perfect. I'm not anti State funding inasmuch as none of us controls where our tax money goes. Hypothecation was muted a few years ago but at the end of the day I can imagine a lot of people being upset at funding political structures they don't believe in - but then people see their tax money spent on nuclear weapons even though they might not support such weapons.
Your talent for belittling other opinions whilst never actually providing a counter argument is legendary. Go on - for a change educate us.
If you havent figured out that I am presenting a counter-argument (that your idea is a bad one) then I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/yet-again-labours-self-serving-efforts-to-block-the-kings-school-merger-have-failed/
It doesn't cover people who injure themselves plaqying football, falling off their horse or drilling through some live cables putting shelves up.
This is a very tired line of yours - I've regularly asked you for evidence for your assertions and you just ignore it. I assume its because you don't want to be quoted on it. Well that's super for arse-covering but meanlingless for the rest of us.
As I suggested, if private gyms offered an additional sub for PMI for injuries, I'd expect it would have a good take up if priced attractively.
"A review of the way prisoners are allowed out of jail on day release is under way after a catalogue of crimes committed by offenders while out on temporary licence...In 2011, a convicted killer carried out 11 armed raids on bookmakers while on day release. Joseph Williams, 52, was allowed temporary leave from Blantyre House open prison, in Kent, in preparation for permanent release from his life sentence. The gambling addict took advantage of lax supervision to go on a robbery spree over six months, netting him £3,300 to pay for his habit.
Mark Neville, a convicted drug dealer, ran a £14 million cocaine smuggling racket while on day release from Kirkham open prison in Lancashire. He was serving eight years for a plot to smuggle heroin in Britain but was allowed out to run a second-hand goods store, which was used as a front to import cocaine hidden inside furniture shipped from Germany.
He was jailed for 26 years in 2010 after being found guilty of conspiracy to import Class A and Class B drugs. In another case, police are still searching for a prisoner who failed to return to Ford open prison in West Sussex after being released on temporary licence..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3826872.ece
Two-party preferred at 50-50, from primary votes of 40% for Labor and 44% for the Coalition. This compares with a 51-49 lead for the Coalition at the last such poll four weeks ago, with Labor up two on the primary vote and the Coalition steady.
I know I'm a bit thick, but I can't understand the argument you are making!?
I'm not arguing anything political, or anti-nationalisation, or pro-privatisation, I'm basically saying that sport participation is a good thing, most good sportspeople who get hurt will get their op done privately (because it is in their career interests), operations are getting better and cleverer, and perhaps it'd be a good thing to encourage cheaper sports-related insurance schemes. End result: fitter population, less tragically early endings of careers, less congestion on NHS waiting lists, better outcomes for sports teams. Win, win, win, win (and less profits, but wider take-up of private health schemes, so neutral there).
What the feck this has to do with people on sofas eating crisps is beyond me? They have every right to do that, just as smokers, drinkers and tombstoners have every right to do what they do. But in an age where we are chasing sporting take-up and sporting excellence, they aren't really relevant are they?
I suppose I'm arguing that in its current guise the NHS is not conducive with being a sports therapy clinic. So let's make nice and do something to square that.
" A 32-stone convicted murderer spared execution after lawyers argued he was too fat to be put to death has died in prison.
Ronald Post was to have been given a lethal injection in January after spending spent 28 years on death row for the 1983 killing of a hotel worker.
But a month before the death sentence was carried out his lawyers successfully argued that because of his immense size the method would take 16 hours to work and be “torturous and lingering”.
A spokesman for the Ohio prison service confirmed that Post had died in a prison hospital on Thursday..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3827216.ece
I believe someone similarly overweight escaped hanging in Washington State because the process would have probably ripped his head off and the court decided it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. However in this case they put him to death by lethal injection instead. Maybe he should have gone with decapitation... although American hangmen were notoriously incompetent and maybe wouldn't have managed it efficiently.
I'm just suggesting that this country probably loses loads of sporting talent to unfixed injuries, and incentivising clubs to insure players would be a good thing. Not all would do it, of course they wouldn't, and I'd never force them.
My insurance costs me about £70 a month and I've had seven operations in total (six were sport related) - I continued the insurance in my own name when the club stopped my contract and I'm covered for most things. I don't need the insurance now because I'm taken up crisp eating myself in retirement (I don't really know why I pay it? Scared of tempting fate by cancelling, I suppose..). That's a big financial loss, but given that I LOVED being part of rugby, and having the ops extended my career by about nine years, I definitely think it was worth it.
Incidentally, my next op will be a more personal one, and I'm having it done on the NHS (this is one of those ops you'd want to delay, as a bloke). My referral letter and demonstration DVD turned up this morning, just in case I have second thoughts. It's deep breath and face up my responsibilities or risk having more kids.... I'm not looking forward to it!
I'm a tad pro-DP - if the evidence is overwhelming - do it. There are the Harold Shipman or Fred West types who killed themselves in prison instead. The evidence against them was complete.
If a prisoner wants to top themselves - frankly let them. Joe Public can do it. Choosing to end your own life is the ultimate decision. Some think this is cowardly or not giving victims justice - I disagree. If the killer is dead, he's dead - letting him live watching Sky for 30yrs seems odd.
There have now been 44 by-elections since the main May elections with 20 (45%) changing hands:
- Conservatives have gained 2 seats but lost 11, 6 to Labour, 2 each to Lib Dems and Independents and 1 to UKIP
- Labour have gained 8 seats, 6 from Conservatives, 1 Green and 1 SNP, whilst losing a seat to UKIP
- Lib Dems have gained 2 seats from Conservatives whilst losing 1 each to Conservatives, UKIP and Independent
- Greens lost both seats defended, 1 to Labour and 1 to a Residents Association
- UKIP gained 3 seats, 1 each from Conservative, Labour and Lib Dems, whilst losing a seat to Health Concern
- SNP lost 1 seat to Labour
- Health Concern gained 1 seat from UKIP
- Whitwell Residents Association gained 1 seat from a Green, who did not defend the seat
- Independents gained 3 seats, 2 from Conservatives and 1 from Lib Dem, who did not contest the seat, whilst losing 1 to a Conservative
Read more: http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/1815/local-council-elections-2013?page=1&scrollTo=74890#ixzz2aFBWDMG0
LOL! I am a bit worried, and it is very final. But the wife can't risk getting pregnant after the last, awkward birth, having an abortion is NOT an option (she wouldn't do it, not now she has kids) , so all eyes are on me....
I don't fancy watching that DVD.
In a panic after getting kicked about in PMQs, Miliband responded by voluntarily unilaterally cutting off Labour's main source of funding leaving him with the option of a hugely embarrasing U-turn or the loss of millions of funding every year. Cameron is under no obligation to follow suit and curtail his own party's funding and will not lose a single vote if he doesn't. Those who care already know about tory funding, those who don't care don't care.
Going forward, it's an obvious open goal at election time to demonstrate that Labour have not learned the economic lesson in that their own finances will be a shambles and they will be running a massive structural deficit. Or they could U-turn and leave union funding alone, or accept massive personal donations to make up the shortfall.
Huge downside and no upside whatever Miliband does from here and all because he couldn't take some flak at PMQs along with a few days of bad headlines.
Ed just keeps on giving
"Those opposed to the current level of immigration into Britain tend to divide into two main groups. The first consists of those who believe that it reinforces a change in the character of the country for the worse: most members of this group will be relatively old and (generally) white. The second is made up of those who are less unhappy about immigration per se, but very critical of the pressure which current levels - and those experienced during the New Labour years - place on housing, public services and jobs. It consists of people from all ethnic backgrounds.
The first group will not be persuaded by any claim that the Government makes. The second are perhaps more biddable - but this morning's papers show how steep the mountainside is that Theresa May has to climb. The Financial Times reports that Ministers intend to press ahead with a trial scheme to make visitors from six countries, including India and Nigeria, pay a £3000 tourist bond. And the Daily Telegraph claims that doctors could be forced to carry out immigration checks on patients. The Home Office is pressing on - having already cut net immigration by a third. (Gross immigration is at its lowest since 2001.)
But look at the bigger, bolder headlines in some of the other papers. The Daily Mail splashes with census figures apparently showing that 500,000 migrants have been given social housing in the last decade. The Daily Express, like other papers, contrasts the urging of Matthew Hancock, the Business Minister, that British firms employ British workers with the high rate of advertising for some of those same jobs by the EU. "UK jobs up for grabs total more than those in other EU states put together," the paper says. And Nick Clegg, doubtless under pressure from his own party, is fighting back against those Home Office vans telling illegal immigrants to go home or face arrest..." http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/07/how-can-theresa-may-persuade-voters-that-net-immigration-really-has-been-cut-by-a-third.html
In reply to your specific point - in my experience unions contribute to Labour MPs' constituencies without trying to micromanage what you do with the money or what positions you take on various issues, but if you are consistently opposed to the union's view they may eventually cut your funding - they don't lean on you to threaten to do it, they just do it. When I was an MP, my CLP used to get enough money from UNITE to pay for two constituency newsletters a year, then they had a review and decided I wasn't especially notable in promoting UNITE issues so they reduced the funding to one newsletter and I think increased it for someone whose views seemed closer to theirs. I didn't see anything very objectionable in any of that, nor did I get worked up about my opponent getting money from some friends who liked her views, and the Ashcroft assistance which initially annoyed me was neatly balanced by people who gave money to me by way of objecting to Ashcroft.
The issue, then, is not that it's evil for people to give parties money, but that if uses for money get out of hand (the extreme exapmle being US-style media ads), the system will be tilted to benefit parties with rich friends. That's why I think it's the demand side more than the supply side that needs to be tackled.
Never had a politician actually knock on my door before. As far as I know there's no local by-elections or anything else coming up either ... though my seat is Warrington South one of the most marginal Conservative-held seats so they could be preparing early for the next election. Thought it was interesting.
EDIT: Also of note is that my house is part of a pretty big new estate. Everyone in our part of the estate would have moved in after the last election and the final occupants would have moved in over the last few weeks (we were one of the first late 2010). So they were probably lacking in data on how people here normally vote.
I want to know when his photographer gets a holiday. When he signed up I bet he didn't expect it to be 24hours including week ends
The two approaches aren't mutually exclusive: we could have donation limits and complete transparency.
In any case, what would be wrong with a multimillionaire wanting to set up and fund a political party to promote the political views he happens to believe in?
Donald Trump has long resisted calls for him to run for president. But now, at age 67, he tells me he’s considering a bid.
“I’m looking,” Trump says. “I have a large following of people who are tired of seeing this country ripped off, and taken advantage of [by] everyone who does business with us. We used to be the smart one of the block, and now we’re the dummies on the block. They want to see me, and I want to see them.”
Trump cautions that it’s early. But for the first time in his life, he’s preparing to potentially put his business work on hold. Behind the scenes, he’s examining how his family could manage his operations on an interim basis, should he decide to run.
“From a business standpoint, I have fabulous children who I’ve taken into the business,” Trump explains. “They know what they’re doing. So the business wouldn’t be the thing that stops me.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354535/trump-heads-iowa-plots-2016-run-robert-costa
I don't mind multimillionaires setting up parties that they like (Goldsmith is the obvious recent example), but I'd like to see a reasonably balanced range of local information. One way to help, almost as unpopular as state funding, would be a marked increase in mandatory TV coverage - PPBs, question times, etc.
Genuine question to clarify: do we agree on the general objective that people with only average interest in politics should get a roughly balanced picture of what their local candidates stand for? Or do you feel that this is an appropriate area for the free market? - if I have more money, I get the lion's share of local coverage?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2013/jul/27/egypt-clashes-morsi-supporters-live
I work for a haulage company. While I have no idea what the boss's politics are.
What is to stop him emblazoning his 25 lorries (and therefore mobile advertising hoardings) with 'Vote Party X'?
Even if the party concerned didn't want his endorsement and had publicly said that we don't want the support of Haulage firm Y.
Or false front organisations being set up to say 'BNP say vote Tory/UKIP' or 'ALF say vote Labour/ LD'
I have another question that I daresay one of the PB brains trust can answer. In the deepest, darkest recesses of my memory there resides a snippet of information. It is that in Victorian times a factory or mine owner tried to coerce his employees to vote a certain way. After this, the law was changed to prevent such coercion. Yorkshire comes to mind, but again that might well be wrong.
Is this just a false memory, or did it really happen?
Postal votes would be a convenient way round it.
"If you don't bring your postal vote in to work you will be managed out of the business etc"
I am always a bit nervous about "balance", as that can be a way of enforcing the status quo, eg not allowing Nigel Farage to be on the leaders' debate because UKIP only scored 3% last time. And if a major news story blew up about one of the parties you wouldn't expect balance. But the US system where billions are squandered on political advertising seems pointless. So I suppose I would stick with the status quo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Act_1872
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt_and_Illegal_Practices_Prevention_Act_1883
It's just that I recall reading a book years ago that mentioned a specific awful case that they claimed led to the legislation. I just can't remember where it was, or even if I'm confused. As usual... ;-)
In 1872 the Secret Ballot Act was passed. This was a very important development as up to 1872, elections had been in public and voters had to vote in public - as commented by Charles Dickens in "Pickwick Papers". This left the system very open to abuse as the person voting might rent a house from a potential MP. If that person voted 'incorrectly' he might be evicted from the home he rented. Everybody would know who he voted for. The act of 1872 stopped this absurd abuse and brought in secret voting - men voted behind a curtain so no-one would ever know who he voted for.
Blackpool North: Sam Rushworth www.samrushworth.org.uk
Rochford & Southend East: Cllr Ian Gilbert
Dorset South: Simon Bowkett (former Weymouth Cllr, current Exeter Cllr)
To come
Burnley
Amber Valley
Leeds NW
SE Cambridgeshire
Chelmsford
and maybe something else (on Cambridgeshire-Chelmsford level of interest...) I couldn't track
Anyway, I've laid Rosberg to be top 6. I suspect the Mercedes will eat its tyres (worth recalling too that high temperatures decrease reliability, and that could be a factor as well).
Edited extra bit: ahem.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/hungary-pre-race.html