Mr. Topping, hard to assess chuggers because they must put off a lot of people as well. Likewise churglars and nagging telephonists. My dad gives a fair bit to charity but cancelled his donations to one after they kept hassling him for more.
Not to mention the wider damage it does to the notion of charitable giving. Is it really charitable if it's not really voluntary but submitting to repeated pressure and nagging?
Yokel's post FPT perhaps requires more thought: it indicates that as ISIS start to get squeezed in Syria and Iraq, they're starting to move into other countries. Destroying ISIS is going to be harder than most people on here seem to warrant ...
Who thought it would be easy? The problem is millions of people who agree with them, and they shift their grievances to maintain the anger so we cannot fix that, so all we can do is beat them down when they pop up, wherever they pop up, accepting they will exist is done form.
Who thought it would be easy? Anyone who witters on about 'defeating' ISIS.
There are two sides to defeating ISIS: defeating them militarily, and hence damaging their capability to hurt us; and defeating their ideology. We're doing the first tentative steps of the first side (although much more needs to be done); I'm not sure we've even started the second. Although by its nature it may be hard to see what it is done.
I was the trustee of a small charity that provided home security for OAP burglary victims - new locks etc. We gained inkind support from local contractors and DIY stores for manpower and supplies.
We spent ZERO on salaries, worked out of the back office of a local business and used their office consumables/computers. Anyone helping us could be certain we weren't farting about or frittering away their donations. I'm pretty cynical about the Big Charidees, but I'm at the scale of the carpetbagging the Times has unearthed.
There are probably several causes of this problem. One might be that it is very hard to measure success of a charity: it should really be how many of the 'cause' (people, animals etc) that are helped; but that can be very hard to measure. Instead, it probably becomes how much money they raise. It thus becomes a chase after money.
A guy I know set up a small and very focussed charity, and aimed for 95% of all money raised to go to the cause. He succeeded through hard graft: things like getting local firms to donate stamps that he could use to mail items, and donating his time for free.
Once a charity's income goes above a certain level, it will need part- or full-time professional employees, or else it will get into terrible trouble. That means you have to offer enough to make it worth their while, albeit not necessarily the same as a commercial organisation. People who support the aims of the charity ought to expect some level of discount, compared to the private sector (eg when I was working as legacy officer and in house solicitor for a charity a couple of years ago, I was paid £20,000 p.a., for 2 days a week).
I'm surprised that 1,000 employees merit £100,000 + p.a.
Just because it's a charity doesn't mean they can't operate on commercial terms. If a charity employee is bringing in £1m/year I have no problem with their salary being relatively high.
Look at the chuggers. They charge quite a high amount to do their job but bring in a lot of money. People may despise them but they are effective and are a critical fund-raising channel for charities.
Chuggers can bring in a lot of money, but aggressive fund-raising can also do a lot to damage a charity's goodwill.
Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?
I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.
Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.
On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
I suppose it just seems unlikely over a thousand are sufficiently large and effective to potentially justify so many earning so much. I'd agree someone could deserve it, but it's so many!
Over a thousand? The article says 30 over 100k and 192 over 60k. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to me, though my donations go elsewhere, mostly via the development arm of my church.
*I see the Times article refers to thinktanks, theatres etc so not charities in the usual sense.
I'm sick and have had about 5 hours sleep in 2 days, so I confess I only glanced at the thread this morning, I withdraw any comments where I've gotten the wrong facts somehow.
The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.
It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.
The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.
If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.
The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.
Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
A lot of Scots felt the same way, almost 45% in fact.
There is nothing simple about either free trade or sovereignty in the modern world. I am tending towards voting leave because it looks increasingly unlikely that Cameron will be able to get adequate protection for Britain's interests in an EU controlled by QMV and the EZ bloc vote but there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative.
Depends on how you frame the message, the alternative to Leave is ever closer union, uncontrolled immigration and the prospect of Turkey joining. That's a far more powerful tabloid message than anything about the EEA, and it's the truth.
Broadsheet readers have made up their minds, read the Telegraph and Guardian, it's the tabloids that will decide.
The prospect of Turkey joining puts me off, but I understand that Cameron, if IN wins, is in favour.
That is, to put it bluntly, because he is a fecking idiot. Admitting a country with several hundred miles of porous and barely existing borders with terrorist states to a common travel area. What could possibly go wrong.
There's no prospect of them joining anytime soon. Saying younsupport it is therefore free of cost or consideration, just a gesture.
I quite agree - and often it's the *fundraising* directors who get a big wedge because of the massive impact they make to income.
TBH, I've never met a nice one. Years ago I had a lot of contact with the bigger charities - and almost all of them left me feeling that any means to an end was justified. Lobbying with added self-righteousness. Bumbling incompetence is quaint but equally unacceptable.
I was the trustee of a small charity that provided home security for OAP burglary victims - new locks etc. We gained inkind support from local contractors and DIY stores for manpower and supplies.
We spent ZERO on salaries, worked out of the back office of a local business and used their office consumables/computers. Anyone helping us could be certain we weren't farting about or frittering away their donations. I'm pretty cynical about the Big Charidees, but I'm at the scale of the carpetbagging the Times has unearthed.
There are probably several causes of this problem. One might be that it is very hard to measure success of a charity: it should really be how many of the 'cause' (people, animals etc) that are helped; but that can be very hard to measure. Instead, it probably becomes how much money they raise. It thus becomes a chase after money.
A guy I know set up a small and very focussed charity, and aimed for 95% of all money raised to go to the cause. He succeeded through hard graft: things like getting local firms to donate stamps that he could use to mail items, and donating his time for free.
Once a charity's income goes above a certain level, it will need part- or full-time professional employees, or else it will get into terrible trouble. That means you have to offer enough to make it worth their while, albeit not necessarily the same as a commercial organisation. People who support the aims of the charity ought to expect some level of discount, compared to the private sector (eg when I was working as legacy officer and in house solicitor for a charity a couple of years ago, I was paid £20,000 p.a., for 2 days a week).
I'm surprised that 1,000 employees merit £100,000 + p.a.
My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.
There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...
I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
Consider. 1. We get a Remain vote. 2. Cameron steps down within a year and the members select a Eurosceptic Leader who was in the Leave camp. 3. UKIP then loses members, activists and money to the Conservatives. 4. Conservative policy is now firmly eurosceptic but accepts there cannot be a referendum until something fundamental changes in the EC. 5. The EC then decide that they have to have Treaty changes....
I gave some money to the British Red Cross a while ago and was inundated with free branded stationery from them. And phone calls that were very persuasive. And mail from every other charity under the Sun.
I was left wondering why BRC had sent me very nice quality full colour free stationery [notelets/envelopes/labels/gift tags]. I'm sure someone thought it'd encourage others who saw them to donate - but I felt my donation was being frittered away.
I get the *and a free toy tiger* marketing for kids presents, but not the other stuff.
Mr. Topping, hard to assess chuggers because they must put off a lot of people as well. Likewise churglars and nagging telephonists. My dad gives a fair bit to charity but cancelled his donations to one after they kept hassling him for more.
Not to mention the wider damage it does to the notion of charitable giving. Is it really charitable if it's not really voluntary but submitting to repeated pressure and nagging?
Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?
I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.
Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.
On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
I suppose it just seems unlikely over a thousand are sufficiently large and effective to potentially justify so many earning so much. I'd agree someone could deserve it, but it's so many!
Over a thousand? The article says 30 over 100k and 192 over 60k. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to me, though my donations go elsewhere, mostly via the development arm of my church.
*I see the Times article refers to thinktanks, theatres etc so not charities in the usual sense.
I'm sick and have had about 5 hours sleep in 2 days, so I confess I only glanced at the thread this morning, I withdraw any comments where I've gotten the wrong facts somehow.
If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.
The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.
Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
A lot of Scots felt the same way, almost 45% in fact.
There is nothing simple about either free trade or sovereignty in the modern world. I am tending towards voting leave because it looks increasingly unlikely that Cameron will be able to get adequate protection for Britain's interests in an EU controlled by QMV and the EZ bloc vote but there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative.
Depends on how you frame the message, the alternative to Leave is ever closer union, uncontrolled immigration and the prospect of Turkey joining. That's a far more powerful tabloid message than anything about the EEA, and it's the truth.
Broadsheet readers have made up their minds, read the Telegraph and Guardian, it's the tabloids that will decide.
The prospect of Turkey joining puts me off, but I understand that Cameron, if IN wins, is in favour.
That is, to put it bluntly, because he is a fecking idiot. Admitting a country with several hundred miles of porous and barely existing borders with terrorist states to a common travel area. What could possibly go wrong.
There's no prospect of them joining anytime soon. Saying younsupport it is therefore free of cost or consideration, just a gesture.
Maybe. There has been a lot of talk about cutting corners and half way accommodations in order to get Turkey to help with the refugee situation. The mooted free visas for Turks would be controversial enough given the number of counterfeit Middle Eastern passport that seem to be floating around at the moment.
All of the unemployment caused by Brown' incompetence has now been eliminated and youth unemployment is at its lowest for 9 years. Most of the EZ countries must weep as their more ambitious and better qualified seek better opportunities here.
I simply do not believe that such continued level of growth in employment is consistent with a mere 2.5% growth this year. I think it is very likely that these figures will be increased to over 3% eventually. It just might take a few years and, by then, not be of interest to anyone but economic historians.
Our productivity is shocking and there has been a slowdown in wages growth, so high employment rates may not necessarily end up leading to rises in GDP beyond forecast.
I hope Guy Pelly is being kept abreast of all matters of State.
I hope Guy Pelly is being kept well supported by his family and friends immediately after his fathers funeral, as indeed we would all hope to be at such a tragic time.
I gave some money to the British Red Cross a while ago and was inundated with free branded stationery from them. And phone calls that were very persuasive. And mail from every other charity under the Sun.
I was left wondering why BRC had sent me very nice quality full colour free stationery [notelets/envelopes/labels/gift tags]. I'm sure someone thought it'd encourage others who saw them to donate - but I felt my donation was being frittered away.
I get the *and a free toy tiger* marketing for kids presents, but not the other stuff.
Mr. Topping, hard to assess chuggers because they must put off a lot of people as well. Likewise churglars and nagging telephonists. My dad gives a fair bit to charity but cancelled his donations to one after they kept hassling him for more.
Not to mention the wider damage it does to the notion of charitable giving. Is it really charitable if it's not really voluntary but submitting to repeated pressure and nagging?
A typical charity dinner is at the Grosvenor House Hotel or Savoy and includes big name stars either as guests or performers.
Think to yourself why they don't hold the dinners at Pret...
The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.
It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.
The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.
If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.
The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.
Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
A lot of Scots felt the same way, almost 45% in fact.
There is nothing simple about either free trade or sovereignty in the modern world. I am tending towards voting leave because it looks increasingly unlikely that Cameron will be able to get adequate protection for Britain's interests in an EU controlled by QMV and the EZ bloc vote but there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative.
Depends on how you frame the message, the alternative to Leave is ever closer union, uncontrolled immigration and the prospect of Turkey joining. That's a far more powerful tabloid message than anything about the EEA, and it's the truth.
Broadsheet readers have made up their minds, read the Telegraph and Guardian, it's the tabloids that will decide.
DavidL has said he's tending to vote Leave to you.
You shouldn't be putting him off by objecting to the fact his reasons for doing so are different to yours.
I'm very flattered to think DavidL will be swayed by my input, but I consider it unlikely.
My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.
There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...
I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
Consider. 1. We get a Remain vote. 2. Cameron steps down within a year and the members select a Eurosceptic Leader who was in the Leave camp. 3. UKIP then loses members, activists and money to the Conservatives. 4. Conservative policy is now firmly eurosceptic but accepts there cannot be a referendum until something fundamental changes in the EC. 5. The EC then decide that they have to have Treaty changes....
We could be in for a few years of Neverendums. A close result either way in the EU referendum leads to another referendum (so we get the right answer, or for the reasons you put above). The Scots take umbrage at the result, so they have another referendum as well.
So:
2014: Scot Indy referendum #1 2015: GE 2016: EU referendum #1 2017: EU referendum #2 2018: Scot Indy referendum #2
Change order and timing as appropriate.
It's interesting to consider the reasons there might be another EU referendum. A narrow 'leave' vote leads to hurried concessions from the EU, or the deal we get with the EU after the vote is very different to that sold to the GBP. On the other side, A narrow 'stay' vote is followed by EU-advantageous treaty changes and a more Eurosceptic government. Or just because the outers just won't shut up.
My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.
There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...
I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
Consider. 1. We get a Remain vote. 2. Cameron steps down within a year and the members select a Eurosceptic Leader who was in the Leave camp. 3. UKIP then loses members, activists and money to the Conservatives. 4. Conservative policy is now firmly eurosceptic but accepts there cannot be a referendum until something fundamental changes in the EC. 5. The EC then decide that they have to have Treaty changes....
That has some possibilities. Part of the problem appears to be that Osborne has his eye on the top job and so its distracting him from being sensible about the economy and letting HMRC slip in corporatist crap like the 4 tax returns per year for small businesses. Cameron meanwhile appears to be focussing on his legacy, rather than the security and future of his country, so his is being as uncontroversial as possible about the EU, and letting the security services slip in totalitarian crap like banning encryption. Both appear to be letting short term personal interest visibly obscure long term national interests.
Charity heads get so much because they claim it's the going rate. Which happens to be set by other charities who have heads who ...etc.
It's basically an admin job until you get into the aggressive stuff of stealing donors from other charities. I'm not sure that's a zero sum game.
When I heard how much the head of Save the Children was getting, I cancelled my standing order of thirty years and put the money into one with much lower overheads. I didn't fancy subsidising his expenses any more.
My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.
There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...
I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
Consider. 1. We get a Remain vote. 2. Cameron steps down within a year and the members select a Eurosceptic Leader who was in the Leave camp. 3. UKIP then loses members, activists and money to the Conservatives. 4. Conservative policy is now firmly eurosceptic but accepts there cannot be a referendum until something fundamental changes in the EC. 5. The EC then decide that they have to have Treaty changes....
That has some possibilities. Part of the problem appears to be that Osborne has his eye on the top job and so its distracting him from being sensible about the economy and letting HMRC slip in corporatist crap like the 4 tax returns per year for small businesses. Cameron meanwhile appears to be focussing on his legacy, rather than the security and future of his country, so his is being as uncontroversial as possible about the EU, and letting the security services slip in totalitarian crap like banning encryption. Both appear to be letting short term personal interest visibly obscure long term national interests.
I predict that the quarterly tax returns for small business and landlords will become a monumental albatross around the Tories neck unless they act quickly to kill this one.
Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?
I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.
Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.
On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
I suppose it just seems unlikely over a thousand are sufficiently large and effective to potentially justify so many earning so much. I'd agree someone could deserve it, but it's so many!
Over a thousand? The article says 30 over 100k and 192 over 60k. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to me, though my donations go elsewhere, mostly via the development arm of my church.
*I see the Times article refers to thinktanks, theatres etc so not charities in the usual sense.
I'm sick and have had about 5 hours sleep in 2 days, so I confess I only glanced at the thread this morning, I withdraw any comments where I've gotten the wrong facts somehow.
The anti-corbyn faction should at least be keeping in touch with these members. Maybe even form a group, rather than a party, called, I don't know, something like 'Velocity' or something. Play Momentum at their own game.
The anti-corbyn faction should at least be keeping in touch with these members. Maybe even form a group, rather than a party, called, I don't know, something like 'Velocity' or something. Play Momentum at their own game.
If they've left, are the party allowed to keep hold of the details to enable them to do that?
I hope Guy Pelly is being kept abreast of all matters of State.
I hope Guy Pelly is being kept well supported by his family and friends immediately after his fathers funeral, as indeed we would all hope to be at such a tragic time.
Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?
I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.
Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.
On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
I suppose it just seems unlikely over a thousand are sufficiently large and effective to potentially justify so many earning so much. I'd agree someone could deserve it, but it's so many!
Over a thousand? The article says 30 over 100k and 192 over 60k. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to me, though my donations go elsewhere, mostly via the development arm of my church.
*I see the Times article refers to thinktanks, theatres etc so not charities in the usual sense.
I'm sick and have had about 5 hours sleep in 2 days, so I confess I only glanced at the thread this morning, I withdraw any comments where I've gotten the wrong facts somehow.
Thanks, but it's probably just man flu
JUST man flu? Have you no idea how serious man flu can be? You're letting the side down. Talk like that and we'll still be expected to do stuff around the house....
The anti-corbyn faction should at least be keeping in touch with these members. Maybe even form a group, rather than a party, called, I don't know, something like 'Velocity' or something. Play Momentum at their own game.
Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?
I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.
Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.
On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
I suppose it just seems unlikely over a thousand are sufficiently large and effective to potentially justify so many earning so much. I'd agree someone could deserve it, but it's so many!
Over a thousand? The article says 30 over 100k and 192 over 60k. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to me, though my donations go elsewhere, mostly via the development arm of my church.
*I see the Times article refers to thinktanks, theatres etc so not charities in the usual sense.
I'm sick and have had about 5 hours sleep in 2 days, so I confess I only glanced at the thread this morning, I withdraw any comments where I've gotten the wrong facts somehow.
Thanks, but it's probably just man flu
JUST man flu? Have you no idea how serious man flu can be? You're letting the side down. Talk like that and we'll still be expected to do stuff around the house....
...oh jeez, the man flu just hit real hard, no one has ever suffered like this before, oh the pain.
I was the trustee of a small charity that provided home security for OAP burglary victims - new locks etc. We gained inkind support from local contractors and DIY stores for manpower and supplies.
We spent ZERO on salaries, worked out of the back office of a local business and used their office consumables/computers. Anyone helping us could be certain we weren't farting about or frittering away their donations. I'm pretty cynical about the Big Charidees, but I'm at the scale of the carpetbagging the Times has unearthed.
There are probably several causes of this problem. One might be that it is very hard to measure success of a charity: it should really be how many of the 'cause' (people, animals etc) that are helped; but that can be very hard to measure. Instead, it probably becomes how much money they raise. It thus becomes a chase after money.
A guy I know set up a small and very focussed charity, and aimed for 95% of all money raised to go to the cause. He succeeded through hard graft: things like getting local firms to donate stamps that he could use to mail items, and donating his time for free.
Once a charity's income goes above a certain level, it will need part- or full-time professional employees, or else it will get into terrible trouble. That means you have to offer enough to make it worth their while, albeit not necessarily the same as a commercial organisation. People who support the aims of the charity ought to expect some level of discount, compared to the private sector (eg when I was working as legacy officer and in house solicitor for a charity a couple of years ago, I was paid £20,000 p.a., for 2 days a week).
I'm surprised that 1,000 employees merit £100,000 + p.a.
But they must be worth it. I'm sure they'd all earn far, far more in the private sector.
A sizeable number of charities are complete rackets, 'businesses' run for the benefit of their cosseted and sizeable staff rather than the causes which they're supposedly helping.
My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.
There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...
I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
Consider. 1. We get a Remain vote. 2. Cameron steps down within a year and the members select a Eurosceptic Leader who was in the Leave camp. 3. UKIP then loses members, activists and money to the Conservatives. 4. Conservative policy is now firmly eurosceptic but accepts there cannot be a referendum until something fundamental changes in the EC. 5. The EC then decide that they have to have Treaty changes....
That has some possibilities. Part of the problem appears to be that Osborne has his eye on the top job and so its distracting him from being sensible about the economy and letting HMRC slip in corporatist crap like the 4 tax returns per year for small businesses. Cameron meanwhile appears to be focussing on his legacy, rather than the security and future of his country, so his is being as uncontroversial as possible about the EU, and letting the security services slip in totalitarian crap like banning encryption. Both appear to be letting short term personal interest visibly obscure long term national interests.
I predict that the quarterly tax returns for small business and landlords will become a monumental albatross around the Tories neck unless they act quickly to kill this one.
The argument from supporters of Osborne is that these voters have nowhere else to go, and can simply 'suck it up'. Reality could be somewhat different.
It's pretty obvious from the favourable treatment afforded to tax avoiding corporations, and his property spiv chums where the Chancellor's loyalties lie, and it's not the traditional Tory voter. If the party is stupid enough to elect him leader, they deserve to lose big in 2020.
The anti-corbyn faction should at least be keeping in touch with these members. Maybe even form a group, rather than a party, called, I don't know, something like 'Velocity' or something. Play Momentum at their own game.
If they've left, are the party allowed to keep hold of the details to enable them to do that?
I don't know. Probably for the rest of the financial year in question, just for practical accounting purposes. But, hey who cares, certainly Momentum don't - seeing as they appear to have broken information commission rules wrt emails.
Individual MPs must know those who are leaving, especially as they appear to be longer standing members.
The anti-corbyn faction should at least be keeping in touch with these members. Maybe even form a group, rather than a party, called, I don't know, something like 'Velocity' or something. Play Momentum at their own game.
If they've left, are the party allowed to keep hold of the details to enable them to do that?
I don't know. Probably for the rest of the financial year in question, just for practical accounting purposes. But, hey who cares, certainly Momentum don't - seeing as they appear to have broken information commission rules wrt emails.
Individual MPs must know those who are leaving, especially as they appear to be longer standing members.
A very large number of Labour and LD gravy trainers I suspect.
If they were all put to death, England would be great again. Eh, Felix? Eh?
I see the morning medication hasn't kicked in yet.
But I have taken it Now you can try answering my question. I'll make it easy for you. What is the benefit to England of people to the left of the Tories? Are they stupid? Vicious? Both?
A very large number of Labour and LD gravy trainers I suspect.
If they were all put to death, England would be great again. Eh, Felix? Eh?
I see the morning medication hasn't kicked in yet.
But I have taken it Now you can try answering my question. I'll make it easy for you. What is the benefit to England of people to the left of the Tories? Are they stupid? Vicious? Both?
I should go try stalking someone else - maybe one of the many 'straw men' you seem so fond of.
Is Indigo the new Tim...or even worse.. the new MG..
Better than being useless, you Tory frothers sure don't like people that can think and have opinions other than licking of Cameron's boots and SNP BAD. Keep dribbling the merde.
A very large number of Labour and LD gravy trainers I suspect.
If they were all put to death, England would be great again. Eh, Felix? Eh?
I see the morning medication hasn't kicked in yet.
But I have taken it Now you can try answering my question. I'll make it easy for you. What is the benefit to England of people to the left of the Tories? Are they stupid? Vicious? Both?
That's an odd way of polling from Lord Ashcroft, though potentially useful if we had a direct comparison poll on a more traditional basis. Getting people to quantify their certainty may affect where they might otherwise stand on a binary "Leave/Remain" question.
It would be useful to know the arithmetic mean as well.
As so often, Lord Ashcroft's write-up is far more exciting than his polling and his full report needs careful reading.
"Asked what political news had caught their attention since the election, and what priorities the government would have to deal with in the coming months and years, the most frequent answers were Jeremy Corbyn, immigration, the refugee crisis, “Labour in meltdown”, terrorism, cuts, tax credits and the junior doctors’ dispute. Few spontaneously mentioned the EU referendum, and those who did were usually prompted by David Cameron’s speech and letter to European Council President Donald Tusk marking the start of the renegotiation process, which were in the news at the time.
Few participants had a clear idea of why the government was holding a referendum, or why David Cameron has promised to do so."
"Whether or not it was urgent, to most people in the groups the decision felt very important. Indeed many said it felt a good deal harder than making a choice at a general election."
The anti-corbyn faction should at least be keeping in touch with these members. Maybe even form a group, rather than a party, called, I don't know, something like 'Velocity' or something. Play Momentum at their own game.
If they've left, are the party allowed to keep hold of the details to enable them to do that?
I don't know. Probably for the rest of the financial year in question, just for practical accounting purposes. But, hey who cares, certainly Momentum don't - seeing as they appear to have broken information commission rules wrt emails.
Individual MPs must know those who are leaving, especially as they appear to be longer standing members.
My own insight into habits of 6 MPs in the past indicates that they are remarkably uninterested in who their members are. The central registers typically do not trigger questions about why a member has not renewed their membership. We have the evidence from Scotland where Labour MPs that died or resigned, left behind blank canvass sheets of their local voters. The engaged MPs such as NickMP are a minority.
My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.
There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...
I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
Consider. 1. We get a Remain vote. 2. Cameron steps down within a year and the members select a Eurosceptic Leader who was in the Leave camp. 3. UKIP then loses members, activists and money to the Conservatives. 4. Conservative policy is now firmly eurosceptic but accepts there cannot be a referendum until something fundamental changes in the EC. 5. The EC then decide that they have to have Treaty changes....
That has some possibilities. Part of the problem appears to be that Osborne has his eye on the top job and so its distracting him from being sensible about the economy and letting HMRC slip in corporatist crap like the 4 tax returns per year for small businesses. Cameron meanwhile appears to be focussing on his legacy, rather than the security and future of his country, so his is being as uncontroversial as possible about the EU, and letting the security services slip in totalitarian crap like banning encryption. Both appear to be letting short term personal interest visibly obscure long term national interests.
I predict that the quarterly tax returns for small business and landlords will become a monumental albatross around the Tories neck unless they act quickly to kill this one.
The argument from supporters of Osborne is that these voters have nowhere else to go, and can simply 'suck it up'. Reality could be somewhat different.
It's pretty obvious from the favourable treatment afforded to tax avoiding corporations, and his property spiv chums where the Chancellor's loyalties lie, and it's not the traditional Tory voter. If the party is stupid enough to elect him leader, they deserve to lose big in 2020.
This is a festering sore. Being brought up by small business people in unrelated interviews. It could help Corbyn at next year's elections, when there is a voter boycott.
KG Once again.. without fail..point proved..keep the mirth coming boy..it brightens everyones day..
Richard, on your recommendation I caught up with The Big Short - excellent film, whip-smart dialogue, a very clever documentary feel for an adaptation of a book. Touches like having sub-prime mortgages explained by a beauty in a bubble-bath were inspired!
My local MP Caroline Ansell [Eastbourne, Tory] sends me a little e-newsletter every Saturday. Wealden were pretty good at contacting members when I was there, but only in the run up to GE2015. I got nothing from Charles Hendry - and found his staff's smuggery rude and entitled.
The anti-corbyn faction should at least be keeping in touch with these members. Maybe even form a group, rather than a party, called, I don't know, something like 'Velocity' or something. Play Momentum at their own game.
If they've left, are the party allowed to keep hold of the details to enable them to do that?
I don't know. Probably for the rest of the financial year in question, just for practical accounting purposes. But, hey who cares, certainly Momentum don't - seeing as they appear to have broken information commission rules wrt emails.
Individual MPs must know those who are leaving, especially as they appear to be longer standing members.
My own insight into habits of 6 MPs in the past indicates that they are remarkably uninterested in who their members are. The central registers typically do not trigger questions about why a member has not renewed their membership. We have the evidence from Scotland where Labour MPs that died or resigned, left behind blank canvass sheets of their local voters. The engaged MPs such as NickMP are a minority.
What *could* swing the referendum to Leave would be a couple of well known Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet figures publicly backing Leave. May and IDS have been mentioned from the Tory side, but who might it be from Labour? Ideally, Corbyn himself, but he appears to have ruled that out. Otherwise it would most likely be figures from the left - maybe McDonnell? I would love Benn to come out as a Leaver, but I can't see it.
I was the trustee of a small charity that provided home security for OAP burglary victims - new locks etc. We gained inkind support from local contractors and DIY stores for manpower and supplies.
We spent ZERO on salaries, worked out of the back office of a local business and used their office consumables/computers. Anyone helping us could be certain we weren't farting about or frittering away their donations. I'm pretty cynical about the Big Charidees, but I'm at the scale of the carpetbagging the Times has unearthed.
There are probably several causes of this problem. One might be that it is very hard to measure success of a charity: it should really be how many of the 'cause' (people, animals etc) that are helped; but that can be very hard to measure. Instead, it probably becomes how much money they raise. It thus becomes a chase after money.
A guy I know set up a small and very focussed charity, and aimed for 95% of all money raised to go to the cause. He succeeded through hard graft: things like getting local firms to donate stamps that he could use to mail items, and donating his time for free.
Once a charity's income goes above a certain level, it will need part- or full-time professional employees, or else it will get into terrible trouble. That means you have to offer enough to make it worth their while, albeit not necessarily the same as a commercial organisation. People who support the aims of the charity ought to expect some level of discount, compared to the private sector (eg when I was working as legacy officer and in house solicitor for a charity a couple of years ago, I was paid £20,000 p.a., for 2 days a week).
I'm surprised that 1,000 employees merit £100,000 + p.a.
Just because it's a charity doesn't mean they can't operate on commercial terms. If a charity employee is bringing in £1m/year I have no problem with their salary being relatively high.
Look at the chuggers. They charge quite a high amount to do their job but bring in a lot of money. People may despise them but they are effective and are a critical fund-raising channel for charities.
It does put people off though, I cancelled all my regular payments to charities due to the excess and fact that more money was going into either politics or their pockets rather than help their cause
My own insight into habits of 6 MPs in the past indicates that they are remarkably uninterested in who their members are. The central registers typically do not trigger questions about why a member has not renewed their membership. We have the evidence from Scotland where Labour MPs that died or resigned, left behind blank canvass sheets of their local voters. The engaged MPs such as NickMP are a minority.
Scotland also showed that even without resigning or dying, the existing "safe" Labour MPs had no idea themselves who who their voters were.
According to James Delingpole, Han Solo and Chewbacca are sole traders and are therefore comparable to white van men, opposed to high levels of taxation and the state interfering in every aspect of their lives. They would more than likely be Kippers.
The Galactic Empire is similar to the EU. However, you would struggle to find anyone willing to lay down their life for the EU.
I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
Consider. 1. We get a Remain vote. 2. Cameron steps down within a year and the members select a Eurosceptic Leader who was in the Leave camp. 3. UKIP then loses members, activists and money to the Conservatives. 4. Conservative policy is now firmly eurosceptic but accepts there cannot be a referendum until something fundamental changes in the EC. 5. The EC then decide that they have to have Treaty changes....
That has some possibilities. Part of the problem appears to be that Osborne has his eye on the top job and so its distracting him from being sensible about the economy and letting HMRC slip in corporatist crap like the 4 tax returns per year for small businesses. Cameron meanwhile appears to be focussing on his legacy, rather than the security and future of his country, so his is being as uncontroversial as possible about the EU, and letting the security services slip in totalitarian crap like banning encryption. Both appear to be letting short term personal interest visibly obscure long term national interests.
I predict that the quarterly tax returns for small business and landlords will become a monumental albatross around the Tories neck unless they act quickly to kill this one.
The argument from supporters of Osborne is that these voters have nowhere else to go, and can simply 'suck it up'. Reality could be somewhat different.
It's pretty obvious from the favourable treatment afforded to tax avoiding corporations, and his property spiv chums where the Chancellor's loyalties lie, and it's not the traditional Tory voter. If the party is stupid enough to elect him leader, they deserve to lose big in 2020.
This is a festering sore. Being brought up by small business people in unrelated interviews. It could help Corbyn at next year's elections, when there is a voter boycott.
The Tories could be in for a nasty surprise. 'Quarterly Returns' are winding a lot of people up.
What *could* swing the referendum to Leave would be a couple of well known Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet figures publicly backing Leave. May and IDS have been mentioned from the Tory side, but who might it be from Labour? Ideally, Corbyn himself, but he appears to have ruled that out. Otherwise it would most likely be figures from the left - maybe McDonnell? I would love Benn to come out as a Leaver, but I can't see it.
My local MP Caroline Ansell [Eastbourne, Tory] sends me a little e-newsletter every Saturday. Wealden were pretty good at contacting members when I was there, but only in the run up to GE2015. I got nothing from Charles Hendry - and found his staff's smuggery rude and entitled.
The anti-corbyn faction should at least be keeping in touch with these members. Maybe even form a group, rather than a party, called, I don't know, something like 'Velocity' or something. Play Momentum at their own game.
If they've left, are the party allowed to keep hold of the details to enable them to do that?
I don't know. Probably for the rest of the financial year in question, just for practical accounting purposes. But, hey who cares, certainly Momentum don't - seeing as they appear to have broken information commission rules wrt emails.
Individual MPs must know those who are leaving, especially as they appear to be longer standing members.
My own insight into habits of 6 MPs in the past indicates that they are remarkably uninterested in who their members are. The central registers typically do not trigger questions about why a member has not renewed their membership. We have the evidence from Scotland where Labour MPs that died or resigned, left behind blank canvass sheets of their local voters. The engaged MPs such as NickMP are a minority.
Natascha Engel's communication is very good in NE Derbyshire, she (or her office) has replied to all the emails/letters I've sent. Kevin Foster is doing an excellent job down in Torbay too - he is very active and accesible through Facebook.
What *could* swing the referendum to Leave would be a couple of well known Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet figures publicly backing Leave. May and IDS have been mentioned from the Tory side, but who might it be from Labour? Ideally, Corbyn himself, but he appears to have ruled that out. Otherwise it would most likely be figures from the left - maybe McDonnell? I would love Benn to come out as a Leaver, but I can't see it.
If I were running leave I would have billboards with:
a) the estimate for EU immigration prior to accession (eg. 14,000 Poles or whatever it was); and b) actual EU immigration since accession.
Natascha Engel's communication is very good in NE Derbyshire, she (or her office) has replied to all the emails/letters I've sent. Kevin Foster is doing an excellent job down in Torbay too - he is very active and accesible through Facebook.
Yep, over the past couple of years Kevin has been very assiduous at collecting e-mail addresses and his weekly round-up e-mails are now going to thousands of constituents. It also contains a feature that promotes all manner of upcoming events across the constituency, that is proving very popular.
Yokel's post FPT perhaps requires more thought: it indicates that as ISIS start to get squeezed in Syria and Iraq, they're starting to move into other countries. Destroying ISIS is going to be harder than most people on here seem to warrant ...
Who thought it would be easy? The problem is millions of people who agree with them, and they shift their grievances to maintain the anger so we cannot fix that, so all we can do is beat them down when they pop up, wherever they pop up, accepting they will exist is done form.
I was the trustee of a small charity that provided home security for OAP burglary victims - new locks etc. We gained inkind support from local contractors and DIY stores for manpower and supplies.
We spent ZERO on salaries, worked out of the back office of a local business and used their office consumables/computers. Anyone helping us could be certain we weren't farting about or frittering away their donations. I'm pretty cynical about the Big Charidees, but I'm at the scale of the carpetbagging the Times has unearthed.
There are probably several causes of this problem. One might be that it is very hard to measure success of a charity: it should really be how many of the 'cause' (people, animals etc) that are helped; but that can be very hard to measure. Instead, it probably becomes how much money they raise. It thus becomes a chase after money.
A guy I know set up a small and very focussed charity, and aimed for 95% of all money raised to go to the cause. He succeeded through hard graft: things like getting local firms to donate stamps that he could use to mail items, and donating his time for free.
Once a charity's income goes above a certain level, it will need part- or full-time professional employees, or else it will get into terrible trouble. That means you have to offer enough to make it worth their while, albeit not necessarily the same as a commercial organisation. People who support the aims of the charity ought to expect some level of discount, compared to the private sector (eg when I was working as legacy officer and in house solicitor for a charity a couple of years ago, I was paid £20,000 p.a., for 2 days a week).
I'm surprised that 1,000 employees merit £100,000 + p.a.
Just because it's a charity doesn't mean they can't operate on commercial terms. If a charity employee is bringing in £1m/year I have no problem with their salary being relatively high.
Look at the chuggers. They charge quite a high amount to do their job but bring in a lot of money. People may despise them but they are effective and are a critical fund-raising channel for charities.
It does put people off though, I cancelled all my regular payments to charities due to the excess and fact that more money was going into either politics or their pockets rather than help their cause
'Save Trumps Toupee' must be struggling without your £3 a year contribution.
My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.
There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...
I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
Consider. 1. We get a Remain vote. 2. Cameron steps down within a year and the members select a Eurosceptic Leader who was in the Leave camp. 3. UKIP then loses members, activists and money to the Conservatives. 4. Conservative policy is now firmly eurosceptic but accepts there cannot be a referendum until something fundamental changes in the EC. 5. The EC then decide that they have to have Treaty changes....
We could be in for a few years of Neverendums. A close result either way in the EU referendum leads to another referendum (so we get the right answer, or for the reasons you put above). The Scots take umbrage at the result, so they have another referendum as well.
So:
2014: Scot Indy referendum #1 2015: GE 2016: EU referendum #1 2017: EU referendum #2 2018: Scot Indy referendum #2
Change order and timing as appropriate.
It's interesting to consider the reasons there might be another EU referendum. A narrow 'leave' vote leads to hurried concessions from the EU, or the deal we get with the EU after the vote is very different to that sold to the GBP. On the other side, A narrow 'stay' vote is followed by EU-advantageous treaty changes and a more Eurosceptic government. Or just because the outers just won't shut up.
the reality
2014: Scot Indy referendum #1 2015: GE 2016: EU referendum #1 2017: 2018: 2019: 2020: GE 2021: 2022: Etc..
I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
Consider. 1. We get a Remain vote. 2. Cameron steps down within a year and the members select a Eurosceptic Leader who was in the Leave camp. 3. UKIP then loses members, activists and money to the Conservatives. 4. Conservative policy is now firmly eurosceptic but accepts there cannot be a referendum until something fundamental changes in the EC. 5. The EC then decide that they have to have Treaty changes....
That has some possibilities. Part of the problem appears to be that Osborne has his eye on the top job and so its distracting him from being sensible about the economy and letting HMRC slip in corporatist crap like the 4 tax returns per year for small businesses. Cameron meanwhile appears to be focussing on his legacy, rather than the security and future of his country, so his is being as uncontroversial as possible about the EU, and letting the security services slip in totalitarian crap like banning encryption. Both appear to be letting short term personal interest visibly obscure long term national interests.
I predict that the quarterly tax returns for small business and landlords will become a monumental albatross around the Tories neck unless they act quickly to kill this one.
The argument from supporters of Osborne is that these voters have nowhere else to go, and can simply 'suck it up'. Reality could be somewhat different.
It's pretty obvious from the favourable treatment afforded to tax avoiding corporations, and his property spiv chums where the Chancellor's loyalties lie, and it's not the traditional Tory voter. If the party is stupid enough to elect him leader, they deserve to lose big in 2020.
This is a festering sore. Being brought up by small business people in unrelated interviews. It could help Corbyn at next year's elections, when there is a voter boycott.
The Tories could be in for a nasty surprise. 'Quarterly Returns' are winding a lot of people up.
We discussed this last week, I've no idea who is advising Osborne but this is a disaster for SMEs and HMRC. He can't continue making bad decisions.
MM..You may also enjoy "Youth"...got so many films to plough through...so far the standard has been very high.
Yep, two or three films a day between now and the New Year! Looking forward to getting to Youth - the pack of a dozen films from StudioCanal looks to be excellent. Also caught up with Duke of Burgundy, which joined Berberian Sound Studio and Under the Skin as a trio of the deeply weird of modern cinema. I don't know how these films get made because the audience must be very small, but I'm grateful they do. I think....
Just an aside, heard Kuenssberg saying the referendum vote would be the most significant taken in Britain for decades.
Did make me wonder if she'd forgotten about Scotland or if she genuinely thought that the UK leaving the EU would be a bigger deal than Scotland leaving the UK.
Just an aside, heard Kuenssberg saying the referendum vote would be the most significant taken in Britain for decades.
Did make me wonder if she'd forgotten about Scotland or if she genuinely thought that the UK leaving the EU would be a bigger deal than Scotland leaving the UK.
Just an aside, heard Kuenssberg saying the referendum vote would be the most significant taken in Britain for decades.
Did make me wonder if she'd forgotten about Scotland or if she genuinely thought that the UK leaving the EU would be a bigger deal than Scotland leaving the UK.
She's absolutely right, it's far more important than the Scotland vote
Comments
Not to mention the wider damage it does to the notion of charitable giving. Is it really charitable if it's not really voluntary but submitting to repeated pressure and nagging?
There are two sides to defeating ISIS: defeating them militarily, and hence damaging their capability to hurt us; and defeating their ideology. We're doing the first tentative steps of the first side (although much more needs to be done); I'm not sure we've even started the second. Although by its nature it may be hard to see what it is done.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11981871/Chugging-bosss-businesses-go-bust-but-shell-keep-the-Aston-Martin.html
1. We get a Remain vote.
2. Cameron steps down within a year and the members select a Eurosceptic Leader who was in the Leave camp.
3. UKIP then loses members, activists and money to the Conservatives.
4. Conservative policy is now firmly eurosceptic but accepts there cannot be a referendum until something fundamental changes in the EC.
5. The EC then decide that they have to have Treaty changes....
Although it does sound really, really stupid.
I was left wondering why BRC had sent me very nice quality full colour free stationery [notelets/envelopes/labels/gift tags]. I'm sure someone thought it'd encourage others who saw them to donate - but I felt my donation was being frittered away.
I get the *and a free toy tiger* marketing for kids presents, but not the other stuff.
Think to yourself why they don't hold the dinners at Pret...
You can start a party with 30K people!
So:
2014: Scot Indy referendum #1
2015: GE
2016: EU referendum #1
2017: EU referendum #2
2018: Scot Indy referendum #2
Change order and timing as appropriate.
It's interesting to consider the reasons there might be another EU referendum. A narrow 'leave' vote leads to hurried concessions from the EU, or the deal we get with the EU after the vote is very different to that sold to the GBP. On the other side, A narrow 'stay' vote is followed by EU-advantageous treaty changes and a more Eurosceptic government. Or just because the outers just won't shut up.
It's basically an admin job until you get into the aggressive stuff of stealing donors from other charities. I'm not sure that's a zero sum game.
When I heard how much the head of Save the Children was getting, I cancelled my standing order of thirty years and put the money into one with much lower overheads. I didn't fancy subsidising his expenses any more.
No wonder you're ill, forsaking the appropriate sacrifices.
"Lord Sugar, Thank you for the opportunity"
But I think I will lie down, as I would guess staring at an iPad even on the lowest brightness isn't helping. A merry Star Wars day to all.
A sizeable number of charities are complete rackets, 'businesses' run for the benefit of their cosseted and sizeable staff rather than the causes which they're supposedly helping.
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/lesley-riddoch-how-good-can-come-out-of-all-this-chaos.11294
Has she a few empty flats short of tenants?
Miss Plato, goats are also excellent for reducing household waste because of that reason. And they can mow lawns. And defeat trolls.
Man up!
It is said that at Waterloo, Wellington called over to one of the British Officers ."Carruthers, I believe that cannon ball has taken off your leg."
The officer replied. "By Gad, sir, I believe you may be right."
"An Air India technician has died after he was sucked into an aircraft engine at Mumbai airport, the airline says.
The accident happened as the jet of flight AI 619 from Mumbai to Hyderabad was being pushed back for departure.
Air India chairman Ashwani Lohani described the accident as a "mishap", but it is not yet clear what happened."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-35115579
It's pretty obvious from the favourable treatment afforded to tax avoiding corporations, and his property spiv chums where the Chancellor's loyalties lie, and it's not the traditional Tory voter. If the party is stupid enough to elect him leader, they deserve to lose big in 2020.
Individual MPs must know those who are leaving, especially as they appear to be longer standing members.
(Edit: although admittedly less effective with trolls)
I'd imagine that Sensible Labour would be investing time well spent in trying to get the leavers back.
Won't post spoilers but the AV club review sums up the core problem I think people will have with this film long term.
http://www.avclub.com/review/better-and-worse-force-awakens-returns-star-wars-i-229882
Although they give it a much more positive spin than I feel right now.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Community-goat-farms-coming-Bristol-kidding/story-28341286-detail/story.html
It would be useful to know the arithmetic mean as well.
As so often, Lord Ashcroft's write-up is far more exciting than his polling and his full report needs careful reading.
"Asked what political news had caught their attention since the election, and what
priorities the government would have to deal with in the coming months and
years, the most frequent answers were Jeremy Corbyn, immigration, the refugee
crisis, “Labour in meltdown”, terrorism, cuts, tax credits and the junior doctors’
dispute. Few spontaneously mentioned the EU referendum, and those who did
were usually prompted by David Cameron’s speech and letter to European
Council President Donald Tusk marking the start of the renegotiation process,
which were in the news at the time.
Few participants had a clear idea of why the government was holding a
referendum, or why David Cameron has promised to do so."
"Whether or not it was urgent, to most people in the groups the decision felt very
important. Indeed many said it felt a good deal harder than making a choice at a
general election."
Turnout is not going to be low. Bet accordingly.
The Galactic Empire is similar to the EU. However, you would struggle to find anyone willing to lay down their life for the EU.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/16/han-solo-and-chewbacca-would-vote-for-donald-trump-and-nigel-farage/
a) the estimate for EU immigration prior to accession (eg. 14,000 Poles or whatever it was); and
b) actual EU immigration since accession.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/677411543118716928
The Tories are broadly in agreement:
http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2015/12/swinney-chooses-not-to-increase-size-of-scottish-budget/
As for SLAB they focus on the need for an unfunded anti-austerity budget:
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/blog/entry/we-need-an-anti-austerity-budget-for-the-long-term
Ben Riley Smith
NEW: Queen has signed EU referendum act. Britain now formally heading for vote.
the reality
2014: Scot Indy referendum #1
2015: GE
2016: EU referendum #1
2017:
2018:
2019:
2020: GE
2021:
2022:
Etc..
JUNE NAILED ON.
A few of us swap TV show favourites, but we don't see many film ones. I've mostly stopped watching them and would like to get interested again.
2015: GE
2016: EU referendum #1 - Britain stays in, new "45" movement born... ; Mayor Khan
2017:
2018:
2019: Dave resigns, Osborne becomes PM.
2020: GE, Labour gain 1 seat - Corbyn exceeds expectations. Resigns anyway, Nandy succesor.
2021:
2022:
Did make me wonder if she'd forgotten about Scotland or if she genuinely thought that the UK leaving the EU would be a bigger deal than Scotland leaving the UK.
I view the EU one as a change of circs - a biggy, but not much change for day to day life or identity.