Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How post BREXIT the bookmakers are looking WH2016

SystemSystem Posts: 11,020
edited August 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How post BREXIT the bookmakers are looking WH2016

With three months to go until election day, people all over the world are lining up to place their bets on who’s going to take on the role of the 45th president of the United States after Barak Obama’s two-term presidency.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,985
    First... and sigh.

    There are some posts for TimT on the last thread.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Second. Like Trump.
  • Options
    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274
    Fourth like UKIP
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,964
    Third, like the SNP :D
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited August 2016
    6th like Japan

    7th like France :lol:
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,215

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,982
    edited August 2016

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Terrible news again this morning.

    Another strong aftershock in Italy - 4.7
    Motorways around Calais 'no go areas' after dark
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Is this Vince's first piece? If so, welcome to the club.

    Throughout, this election has been about who wants to lose it most and I don't see that changing. Clinton - in marked contrast to her husband - is uncharismatic and a poor campaigner. Trump is an unqualified egoist with a strong nasty streak. Both are intensely disliked by a great many voters.

    What that means is that the swing Dem/Rep group is probably even smaller than usual (though we shouldn't ignore the swing Dem/abstain, Rep/Abstain, Rep/Lib and Dem/Grn groups). Trump does seem to have recovered lost ground since the Dem convention but there's almost certainly a low ceiling to his support. If Hillary can keep a saftety-first campaign on track, she'll win.

    Trump's task is therefore to lower that ceiling further, which is a task he'll no doubt enjoy thoroughly; negative campaigning is what he does best. Still, Hillary's negatives are well known and to a large extent, priced in; it's a different game from taking on Rubio or Cruz.

    Trump could win but I don't expect him to and I don't expect him to come close. Apart from the polling history - few elections swing this late in the contest - I think there's a bigger reserve of voters who'd come out to stop Trump than would do so to stop Hillary, if the race looks tight and they have to vote holding their nose. The favourability scores are proof enough there.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,215

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    By "free" you actually mean "paid for by everyone including those without children", yes?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,328
    Thing is Brexit had Boris, Gove, Gisela, an agnostic (at best) Labour leader and almost half the Conservative Party and much national newspaper support as well as the likes of Farage.

    As far as I can tell, Trump just has Trump (the Farage piece) and it is hard to see how he forms a winning coalition just off the back of that.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,328

    Is this Vince's first piece? If so, welcome to the club.

    Throughout, this election has been about who wants to lose it most and I don't see that changing. Clinton - in marked contrast to her husband - is uncharismatic and a poor campaigner. Trump is an unqualified egoist with a strong nasty streak. Both are intensely disliked by a great many voters.

    What that means is that the swing Dem/Rep group is probably even smaller than usual (though we shouldn't ignore the swing Dem/abstain, Rep/Abstain, Rep/Lib and Dem/Grn groups). Trump does seem to have recovered lost ground since the Dem convention but there's almost certainly a low ceiling to his support. If Hillary can keep a saftety-first campaign on track, she'll win.

    Trump's task is therefore to lower that ceiling further, which is a task he'll no doubt enjoy thoroughly; negative campaigning is what he does best. Still, Hillary's negatives are well known and to a large extent, priced in; it's a different game from taking on Rubio or Cruz.

    Trump could win but I don't expect him to and I don't expect him to come close. Apart from the polling history - few elections swing this late in the contest - I think there's a bigger reserve of voters who'd come out to stop Trump than would do so to stop Hillary, if the race looks tight and they have to vote holding their nose. The favourability scores are proof enough there.

    That's probably about right.

    My main worry about this vote is that the UK media are *terrible* at reading the mood and temperature of US elections, and there's almost always a strong undertone of favourability to the Democrats.

    Trump is so obviously a pantomime baddy that I worry that sentiment is even stronger than usual.
  • Options
    MontyMonty Posts: 346
    GeoffM said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    By "free" you actually mean "paid for by everyone including those without children", yes?
    Yes.
    It's called investing in the future of your country.
  • Options

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    It wouldnt be free, it would cost a fortune and be paid for with additional taxes.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,215
    GeoffM said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    By "free" you actually mean "paid for by everyone including those without children", yes?
    Yep. The country would gain as a whole by improving the life chances and early years education of all children if highly trained people were involved in childcare centres. I believe there is one staff member for every five or six children.
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Monty said:

    GeoffM said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    By "free" you actually mean "paid for by everyone including those without children", yes?
    Yes.
    It's called investing in the future of your country.
    No it's not.
    It's called taxing me because of your lifestyle choice.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,964

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    Or they could stop spending £1200 a month on utilities.. madness :o
  • Options

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,328

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.

    Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.

    Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.

    Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?

    Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784

    Is this Vince's first piece? If so, welcome to the club.

    Throughout, this election has been about who wants to lose it most and I don't see that changing. Clinton - in marked contrast to her husband - is uncharismatic and a poor campaigner. Trump is an unqualified egoist with a strong nasty streak. Both are intensely disliked by a great many voters.

    What that means is that the swing Dem/Rep group is probably even smaller than usual (though we shouldn't ignore the swing Dem/abstain, Rep/Abstain, Rep/Lib and Dem/Grn groups). Trump does seem to have recovered lost ground since the Dem convention but there's almost certainly a low ceiling to his support. If Hillary can keep a saftety-first campaign on track, she'll win.

    Trump's task is therefore to lower that ceiling further, which is a task he'll no doubt enjoy thoroughly; negative campaigning is what he does best. Still, Hillary's negatives are well known and to a large extent, priced in; it's a different game from taking on Rubio or Cruz.

    Trump could win but I don't expect him to and I don't expect him to come close. Apart from the polling history - few elections swing this late in the contest - I think there's a bigger reserve of voters who'd come out to stop Trump than would do so to stop Hillary, if the race looks tight and they have to vote holding their nose. The favourability scores are proof enough there.


    yup i agree. It's hillarys to lose at the moment. I cant see anything trump can do to improve his own likeability, he has said too many terrible things
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    Also Sky at £100 - justified by films. You can get films at £50 - it's sport that's killing you
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    If you look at the figures, the women aren't all the lower earners, by any means.

    I am glad no-one begrudges the monthly £20 so the Guinea pig doesn't starve...
  • Options
    I agree. I don’t expect Trump to win either. Does he have a chance? Sure. The polls are looking unexpectedly weak for Clinton in Iowa and Nevada, and besides, who knows what’s in all those e-mails? That being said, in general, the state polls aren’t too good for him.

    At this point, he should be leading or battling neck and neck in Michigan and Wisconsin. Blue collar white males aren’t doing that great these days and those states were the bulwark for Obama in the last two elections. Instead, he’s lagging farther and farther behind there. What’s worse, is that states like Georgia, Arizona and Missouri are now shaky for him. That absolutely should not be happening.

    So, Clinton is pulling ahead in Ohio, and has had Florida and Virginia locked down for a while now. I think, really, the big question is whether the Dems take back the Senate.
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    If you look at the figures, the women aren't all the lower earners, by any means.

    I am glad no-one begrudges the monthly £20 so the Guinea pig doesn't starve...
    That is quite an impressive guinea pig food bill
  • Options

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.

    Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.

    Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.

    Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?

    Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
    Last paragraph agree.

  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    What was that famous Jesuit comment about 7 year olds?
  • Options
    Charles said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    Also Sky at £100 - justified by films. You can get films at £50 - it's sport that's killing you
    I get BT TV. All the decent entertainment channels like discovery for £16 a month and all their sport free.

    Can also add sky box office for about £15 a month if I wanted to.

    Schools really ought to teach home finances.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,328
    Monty said:

    GeoffM said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    By "free" you actually mean "paid for by everyone including those without children", yes?
    Yes.
    It's called investing in the future of your country.
    Guess what?

    If those in their 20s and 30s voted in large numbers, and the retired did not, then that's what we'd have.

    State spending patterns follow the votes.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    My dad told me once "Don't expect to inherit much - I have always lived up to my income!"

    The same is true of these families (and myself when I was a thirty something), when my income rose, so did my lifestyle.

    If there really was a crunch then people can cope, and indeed can even enjoy frugality. I see it fairly often when people are forced to work less by medical conditions; which even in the UK put a financial strain on families.

    The answer is not financial subsidies for childcare for people on twice national median income. It would only come back to them in higher taxes.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,328
    Charles said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    Also Sky at £100 - justified by films. You can get films at £50 - it's sport that's killing you
    My wife and I cope fine with freeview.

    She pays £80 a year for Amazon Prime. When we have the time, families have less, we might watch one of the boxsets.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    RobD said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    Or they could stop spending £1200 a month on utilities.. madness :o
    How on Earth does a small house generate a £1200 a month utility bill? Do they have air conditioning at 10 degrees in the summer and heating at 30 degrees in the winter, with every family member having a bath twice a day?
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    edited August 2016

    Charles said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    Also Sky at £100 - justified by films. You can get films at £50 - it's sport that's killing you
    I get BT TV. All the decent entertainment channels like discovery for £16 a month and all their sport free.

    Can also add sky box office for about £15 a month if I wanted to.

    Schools really ought to teach home finances.
    I've switched to freesat and on demand from Netflix, Amazon and Now TV. I've also just moved to Vodafone broadband. £22 for broadband plus £9/m for Netflix and £7/m for NowTV, I have Amazon prime for deliveries anyway. £38/m where I was paying Sky £89/m for almost all the same content.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,734

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.

    Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.

    Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.

    Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?

    Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
    Last paragraph agree.

    Agreed. I accept people need holidays and the like, but I've always been amazed how much people spend on them when money may be tight.

    That said I plan to spend a few grand on a holiday myself, though it is my first in over 10 years.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Good morning, everyone.

    I wonder whether women are going to vote for Clinton just because she's a she?

    Of course, it could be an understandable dislike of Trump, but identity politics is rank and I hope people don't vote based on which candidate has the same set of chromosomes.

    My guess would be that Clinton will win and then get slaughtered in 2020.

    Betting Post

    F1: No Safety Car, Ladbrokes, 2.62.

    In the last 5 races I think there have been 2 with safety car periods (a VSC occurred last year). Also, the weather forecast has only a very low chance of rain. Always the possibility of a crash but this is somewhat mitigated by the Virtual Safety Car.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited August 2016
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    Or they could stop spending £1200 a month on utilities.. madness :o
    How on Earth does a small house generate a £1200 a month utility bill? Do they have air conditioning at 10 degrees in the summer and heating at 30 degrees in the winter, with every family member having a bath twice a day?
    They're running a secret cannabis farm. Or next door does...
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,328

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    This is the big one. As costs, especially childcare, rise, the marginal gains don't seem worth it. A single earner would also allow for food preparation rather than ready meals, and have more time to spend with the children and their school books.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.

    Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.

    Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.

    Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?

    Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
    Last paragraph agree.

    I am not sure that people on twice national median income can reasonably be described as lower middle class.

    And actually tbeir housing costs are rather modest. When I was 30 I was paying 40% of my income on mortgage at 12%. These families will really know austerity if interest rates went to half that.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784

    I agree. I don’t expect Trump to win either. Does he have a chance? Sure. The polls are looking unexpectedly weak for Clinton in Iowa and Nevada, and besides, who knows what’s in all those e-mails? That being said, in general, the state polls aren’t too good for him.

    At this point, he should be leading or battling neck and neck in Michigan and Wisconsin. Blue collar white males aren’t doing that great these days and those states were the bulwark for Obama in the last two elections. Instead, he’s lagging farther and farther behind there. What’s worse, is that states like Georgia, Arizona and Missouri are now shaky for him. That absolutely should not be happening.

    So, Clinton is pulling ahead in Ohio, and has had Florida and Virginia locked down for a while now. I think, really, the big question is whether the Dems take back the Senate.

    florida ia a bit shaky for clinton, but clinton can win without it at the moment.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,964

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.

    Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.

    Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.

    Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?

    Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
    Last paragraph agree.

    I am not sure that people on twice national median income can reasonably be described as lower middle class.

    And actually tbeir housing costs are rather modest. When I was 30 I was paying 40% of my income on mortgage at 12%. These families will really know austerity if interest rates went to half that.
    I pay 60% of my income on rent... woe is me :(
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    Or they could stop spending £1200 a month on utilities.. madness :o
    How on Earth does a small house generate a £1200 a month utility bill? Do they have air conditioning at 10 degrees in the summer and heating at 30 degrees in the winter, with every family member having a bath twice a day?
    They're running a secret cannabis farm. Or next door does...
    LOL maybe ;)
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,734

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    Don't a lot of schools increasingly run more after school clubs than before as a way to keep the kids there until 5pm for the parents?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,964
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    Or they could stop spending £1200 a month on utilities.. madness :o
    How on Earth does a small house generate a £1200 a month utility bill? Do they have air conditioning at 10 degrees in the summer and heating at 30 degrees in the winter, with every family member having a bath twice a day?
    Burning fivers on the stove perhaps? :D
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,328
    MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    Also Sky at £100 - justified by films. You can get films at £50 - it's sport that's killing you
    I get BT TV. All the decent entertainment channels like discovery for £16 a month and all their sport free.

    Can also add sky box office for about £15 a month if I wanted to.

    Schools really ought to teach home finances.
    I've switched to freesat and on demand from Netflix, Amazon and Now TV. I've also just moved to Vodafone broadband. £22 for broadband plus £9/m for Netflix and £7/m for NowTV, I have Amazon prime for deliveries anyway. £38/m where I was paying Sky £89/m for almost all the same content.
    Which is the greater rip off? Gillette men's razors or Sky TV?

    Discuss.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Good morning all.

    "Keeping up with the Joneses" was a running joke as I grew up. Perhaps the advent of social media has increased the pressure to do so.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    Yes. That's absolutely right. I've never seen the logic behind having parents work 9-5 and kids go to school from 9-3. They should lengthen the school day, not only would it mean better education but also better for the economy as parents wouldn't need to restrict their hours.
  • Options

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    The alternative is that schools double their salary bill for two shifts of teachers.

    Schools are there to educate. Taking the kids off the parents hands is an accidental by product.

    Also ask any parent or teacher what a primary school kids concentration in late afternoon and you get an answer as to why they are booted out at 3.30
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,328
    kle4 said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    Don't a lot of schools increasingly run more after school clubs than before as a way to keep the kids there until 5pm for the parents?
    Some do, some don't. And they charge for it.

    Quite a few are a bit shit as well.

    Private schools have a huge advantage here as they teach music, sport, archaeology and fun sciences and all sorts of structured activity rather than babysitting kids watching Ballamory.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896

    Betting Post

    F1: No Safety Car, Ladbrokes, 2.62.

    In the last 5 races I think there have been 2 with safety car periods (a VSC occurred last year). Also, the weather forecast has only a very low chance of rain. Always the possibility of a crash but this is somewhat mitigated by the Virtual Safety Car.

    Okay, I'll join you on that (if I can get some credit in my Ladbrokes account, Betfair's not got going yet). There's no rain forecast and if they all get round the first lap it's unlikely except for a big crash.

    Hamilton will be starting from the back, he will be praying for a safety car.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,734
    edited August 2016

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    The alternative is that schools double their salary bill for two shifts of teachers.

    Schools are there to educate. Taking the kids off the parents hands is an accidental by product.

    Also ask any parent or teacher what a primary school kids concentration in late afternoon and you get an answer as to why they are booted out at 3.30
    There do seem different expectations for many jobs. teachers are childminders, police are social workers, etc
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,964
    O/T.. just finished watching the Horizon documentary on Adam Pearson and his Nf1. Very moving,
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    MaxPB said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    Yes. That's absolutely right. I've never seen the logic behind having parents work 9-5 and kids go to school from 9-3. They should lengthen the school day, not only would it mean better education but also better for the economy as parents wouldn't need to restrict their hours.
    Parents work 9-5? Blimey. I've never worked anything but 9-6 apart from when I did shifts.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    After the baby discussion the other day

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/scaring-teenagers-off-pregnancy-with-baby-dolls-has-reverse-effect-gkcsq559t

    Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    kle4 said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    Don't a lot of schools increasingly run more after school clubs than before as a way to keep the kids there until 5pm for the parents?
    Some do, some don't. And they charge for it.

    Quite a few are a bit shit as well.

    Private schools have a huge advantage here as they teach music, sport, archaeology and fun sciences and all sorts of structured activity rather than babysitting kids watching Ballamory.
    It's weird because kids today all finish at 3, when I was at school it was 8:30 to 4:00 they must have shortened the school day since then.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,964

    MaxPB said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    Yes. That's absolutely right. I've never seen the logic behind having parents work 9-5 and kids go to school from 9-3. They should lengthen the school day, not only would it mean better education but also better for the economy as parents wouldn't need to restrict their hours.
    Parents work 9-5? Blimey. I've never worked anything but 9-6 apart from when I did shifts.
    40 hours is pretty standard...
  • Options
    <

    MaxPB said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    Yes. That's absolutely right. I've never seen the logic behind having parents work 9-5 and kids go to school from 9-3. They should lengthen the school day, not only would it mean better education but also better for the economy as parents wouldn't need to restrict their hours.
    Parents work 9-5? Blimey. I've never worked anything but 9-6 apart from when I did shifts.
    What about the hour plus commuting at either end too?
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited August 2016
    The only viable path to 270 for Trump is through the "Rust Belt Heavies + Florida".

    Romney states and Pennsylvania and Ohio to make 244 with Clinton on 265. Florida's 29 puts either over the line.

    It's not happening as it stands for the Donald.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/Ar3xm

  • Options
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    Yes. That's absolutely right. I've never seen the logic behind having parents work 9-5 and kids go to school from 9-3. They should lengthen the school day, not only would it mean better education but also better for the economy as parents wouldn't need to restrict their hours.
    Parents work 9-5? Blimey. I've never worked anything but 9-6 apart from when I did shifts.
    40 hours is pretty standard...
    9-5 is at best 37.5 hours, possibly only 35 - unless you can find a company that pays you to have lunch.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,964

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    Yes. That's absolutely right. I've never seen the logic behind having parents work 9-5 and kids go to school from 9-3. They should lengthen the school day, not only would it mean better education but also better for the economy as parents wouldn't need to restrict their hours.
    Parents work 9-5? Blimey. I've never worked anything but 9-6 apart from when I did shifts.
    40 hours is pretty standard...
    9-5 is at best 37.5 hours, possibly only 35 - unless you can find a company that pays you to have lunch.
    9-5 with lunch at your desk ;)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,926
    Sandpit said:

    Betting Post

    F1: No Safety Car, Ladbrokes, 2.62.

    In the last 5 races I think there have been 2 with safety car periods (a VSC occurred last year). Also, the weather forecast has only a very low chance of rain. Always the possibility of a crash but this is somewhat mitigated by the Virtual Safety Car.

    Okay, I'll join you on that (if I can get some credit in my Ladbrokes account, Betfair's not got going yet). There's no rain forecast and if they all get round the first lap it's unlikely except for a big crash.

    Hamilton will be starting from the back, he will be praying for a safety car.
    Single
    2016 Belgian Grand Prix Formula 1
    No
    Safety car to be deployed during race
    Odds: 13/8
    1 line at £20.00
    Total stake for this bet: £20.00
    Potential return: £52.50
    Time: 26/08/2016 8:17:53
    Receipt No: O/x
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,982
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    Or they could stop spending £1200 a month on utilities.. madness :o
    How on Earth does a small house generate a £1200 a month utility bill? Do they have air conditioning at 10 degrees in the summer and heating at 30 degrees in the winter, with every family member having a bath twice a day?
    Burning fivers on the stove perhaps? :D
    Our place is smaller than those quoted I would think, but our utilities are around 40% of those quoted, including Sky. Which we have because it’s the only place one can watch top quality cricket!
    Apart from going to the games of course!
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    edited August 2016

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    Or they could stop spending £1200 a month on utilities.. madness :o
    How on Earth does a small house generate a £1200 a month utility bill? Do they have air conditioning at 10 degrees in the summer and heating at 30 degrees in the winter, with every family member having a bath twice a day?
    Burning fivers on the stove perhaps? :D
    Our place is smaller than those quoted I would think, but our utilities are around 40% of those quoted, including Sky. Which we have because it’s the only place one can watch top quality cricket!
    Apart from going to the games of course!
    If you only watch test matches then Now TV is £11 for a weekly pass. A four test summer series and five test winter series comes to £100 per year rather than £30/m, if you watch other sports then obviously it isn't a good option, but I use the the daily passes for Spurs matches and the weekly passes for cricket. I just don't care enough about golf, ATP tennis or club rugby.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,734
    PlatoSaid said:

    After the baby discussion the other day

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/scaring-teenagers-off-pregnancy-with-baby-dolls-has-reverse-effect-gkcsq559t

    Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.

    Even as a teenager I always thought these sorts of efforts were pointless. I've lost count of many American Tv shows which have a 'look after an egg or bag of flour of robot doll as though it were a baby' plot and charcters either take it seriously or a failure to do 'well' is acted like it means something about child rearing, when it always seemed to me that no matter how much they might try to take it seriously they obviously will act differently with a real infant, so what's the bloody point?

    So not surprised this type of scaring off may not work.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    PlatoSaid said:

    After the baby discussion the other day

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/scaring-teenagers-off-pregnancy-with-baby-dolls-has-reverse-effect-gkcsq559t

    Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.

    Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,734
    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    Don't a lot of schools increasingly run more after school clubs than before as a way to keep the kids there until 5pm for the parents?
    Some do, some don't. And they charge for it.

    Quite a few are a bit shit as well.

    Private schools have a huge advantage here as they teach music, sport, archaeology and fun sciences and all sorts of structured activity rather than babysitting kids watching Ballamory.
    It's weird because kids today all finish at 3, when I was at school it was 8:30 to 4:00 they must have shortened the school day since then.
    9-3.40 at mine it was.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,328

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    The alternative is that schools double their salary bill for two shifts of teachers.

    Schools are there to educate. Taking the kids off the parents hands is an accidental by product.

    Also ask any parent or teacher what a primary school kids concentration in late afternoon and you get an answer as to why they are booted out at 3.30
    To which my answer would be round objects.

    I went to private school and it was always a full day.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,992
    edited August 2016
    I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,734
    Sandpit said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    After the baby discussion the other day

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/scaring-teenagers-off-pregnancy-with-baby-dolls-has-reverse-effect-gkcsq559t

    Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.

    Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
    Shh, you're not allowed to say that thesedays. Not to say I think it particularly common, but I have seen accounts with young people literally saying that (and, more tragically, that some from very difficult family situations think if they become a mother it will help them in some way become more stable by default).
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,231
    MaxPB said:



    It's weird because kids today all finish at 3, when I was at school it was 8:30 to 4:00 they must have shortened the school day since then.

    I would guess you had an hour plus for lunch? Most schools especially comprehensives only have 20-30 minutes as extra-curricular has withered away and they twigged that about 75% of all serious bullying incidents happened in the second half of lunch hours.

    All bar one of those people were in the south east. That inflates their housing costs (mine are a third of that for a comparable house). But I'm likewise flabbergasted by that utility bill. Mine would barely be £1500 a year, never mind a month, and I have to pay South Staffs Water's extortion money rather high rates. Somebody is being taken for a huge ride there.

    And having watched last night's debate, isn't Jeremy Corbyn rude and aggressive? If that's his idea of a kinder, gentler politics, no wonder he admires the IRA and Hamas.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274
    The utility bill figures are strikingly high, even allowing for some of the bigger ticket items like council tax. My guess is that 'insurance' includes life insurance payments for some of the families, as well as buildings, travel and car, and mobile phone bills include phones and calls for all the family.
  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    HYUFD said:

    I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina

    *General Election since 1992. Though the mistake is understandable, they are beginning to look like Presidential contests.

    There's certainly a lot of room for turnout in the US to increase. Could be that like Leave, Trump is ahead already because he's mobilising non-voters, and the polls aren't picking it up. I'm sceptical though, Clinton is enjoying significantly bigger poll leads than Remain had at this stage, so the error would have to be monumental.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,417
    Charles said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    What was that famous Jesuit comment about 7 year olds?
    I shudder to think.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,231
    edited August 2016

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.

    Edited for FFS.
    The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.

    Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
    The real scandal is why state schools all turn out at 3pm. They haven't yet caught up with the 21st Century and the fact women now want to have careers as well.

    If you're serious about the gender pay gap, you can't act surprised at it when women (and it will always generally be women) have to work a 6-hour day rather than an 8-hour day to pick up their little mites.

    Paying for a childminder to cover the 3pm-5.30pm gap might make the headline figures look better but the net effect is just the same.
    The alternative is that schools double their salary bill for two shifts of teachers.

    Schools are there to educate. Taking the kids off the parents hands is an accidental by product.

    Also ask any parent or teacher what a primary school kids concentration in late afternoon and you get an answer as to why they are booted out at 3.30
    To which my answer would be round objects.

    I went to private school and it was always a full day.
    I think you will find private schools have a far higher staffing ratio than their state equivalents, both to ensure smaller classes and to have longer hours. The one in Cannock must be the smallest of any school (about one-sixth the numbers of Chase High, at a guess) but has almost half the number of teaching staff.

    It therefore has average class sizes of twelve and stays open until five, while the state schools have average class sizes of 34 and close at 3.10. And all for the small matter of up to forty grand a year...
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Charles said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    What was that famous Jesuit comment about 7 year olds?
    I shudder to think.
    "Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man". I still believe this adage. Hence I think our concentration on the 11plus is misplaced. Early years is all.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:



    It's weird because kids today all finish at 3, when I was at school it was 8:30 to 4:00 they must have shortened the school day since then.

    I would guess you had an hour plus for lunch? Most schools especially comprehensives only have 20-30 minutes as extra-curricular has withered away and they twigged that about 75% of all serious bullying incidents happened in the second half of lunch hours.
    I think this was the school day:

    8:30 - register, house
    8:45 - assembly, main hall
    9:00 - period 1
    10:00 - period 2
    11:00 - break
    11:30 - period 3 (double session, usually PE or technology class)
    13:00 - lunch
    14:00 - period 4
    15:00 - period 5
    16:00 - end

    The school library was open until 5pm though so anyone who's parents couldn't pick them up until later would usually just hang around there doing homework for an hour, but most people got the bus home.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    On topic, I think the key to the US election is going to be the debates.

    The first point will be if Gary Johnson can get an invite - in which case anything could happen as the dynamic of the race is completely changed with three people.

    The second will be Trump's performance - if he manages not to offend anyone - big IF there - and continues to call his opponent corrupt and untrustworthy, he might see a polling boost and have the momentum for the final weeks.

    I think Trump is the value bet but I'm only betting beer money on this election - there's clearly a lot going on that I don't understand from so far away. The Republican nomination was a much clearer betting opportunity.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,992
    Essexit said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina

    *General Election since 1992. Though the mistake is understandable, they are beginning to look like Presidential contests.

    There's certainly a lot of room for turnout in the US to increase. Could be that like Leave, Trump is ahead already because he's mobilising non-voters, and the polls aren't picking it up. I'm sceptical though, Clinton is enjoying significantly bigger poll leads than Remain had at this stage, so the error would have to be monumental.
    Sorry general election yes. Remain had up to 10% leads weeks before polling day and still led in most polls in the final week. Trump presently trails by about 5%, if he can win the debates and cut that lead to 1 or 2% in the final week anything can happen
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2016
    IanB2 said:

    The utility bill figures are strikingly high, even allowing for some of the bigger ticket items like council tax. My guess is that 'insurance' includes life insurance payments for some of the families, as well as buildings, travel and car, and mobile phone bills include phones and calls for all the family.

    I’d have thought Life/Household/Loss of Job insurance are prerequisite if there's a mortgage.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,612
    It is usually the case that when there is a teachers' strike the parents interviewed on TV complain that they will have to take time off work to look after their children - never that the children's education is being disrupted.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina

    Trump needs to stop insulting people. First, because he takes out his own supporters with friendly fire, as when his attacks on Hillary seem misogynistic or when he attacks military families (the armed forces (a) vote and (b) vote overwhelmingly Republican). Second because it is unseemly; it is not presidential -- Americans need to feel their country is secure and prosperous, leader of the free world, not liable to start world war three because Putin's got bigger hands.

    On scandals, something might emerge from Hillary's emails, but equally there may be a shock in Trump's tax returns and business dealings, so that is a wash. The known unknowns cancel each other out, at least while they remain unknown.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    Martin Brundle : Lewis might only take one engine now, as taking two might mean he misses out on upgrades later in the season. Still lots of discussions to have over the next 24 hours.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    GeoffM said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    By "free" you actually mean "paid for by everyone including those without children", yes?
    Yes, because children grow up to be tax payers and the better start hey have in life the more tax they pay later.
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    HYUFD said:

    I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina

    One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.

    A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    IanB2 said:

    The utility bill figures are strikingly high, even allowing for some of the bigger ticket items like council tax. My guess is that 'insurance' includes life insurance payments for some of the families, as well as buildings, travel and car, and mobile phone bills include phones and calls for all the family.

    I’d have thought Life/Household/Loss of Job insurance are prerequisite if there's a mortgage.
    Probably private health cover too to get to that figure.
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341

    IanB2 said:

    The utility bill figures are strikingly high, even allowing for some of the bigger ticket items like council tax. My guess is that 'insurance' includes life insurance payments for some of the families, as well as buildings, travel and car, and mobile phone bills include phones and calls for all the family.

    I’d have thought Life/Household/Loss of Job insurance are prerequisite if there's a mortgage.
    Only buildings insurance is mandatory.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836

    Charles said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    What was that famous Jesuit comment about 7 year olds?
    I shudder to think.
    "That one looks tasty."
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,231
    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:



    It's weird because kids today all finish at 3, when I was at school it was 8:30 to 4:00 they must have shortened the school day since then.

    I would guess you had an hour plus for lunch? Most schools especially comprehensives only have 20-30 minutes as extra-curricular has withered away and they twigged that about 75% of all serious bullying incidents happened in the second half of lunch hours.
    I think this was the school day:

    8:30 - register, house
    8:45 - assembly, main hall
    9:00 - period 1
    10:00 - period 2
    11:00 - break
    11:30 - period 3 (double session, usually PE or technology class)
    13:00 - lunch
    14:00 - period 4
    15:00 - period 5
    16:00 - end

    The school library was open until 5pm though so anyone who's parents couldn't pick them up until later would usually just hang around there doing homework for an hour, but most people got the bus home.
    So 90 minutes of breaks. The average now would I think be an hour (20+40) but there are plenty where it doesn't clear 45 minutes - and there's a big chunk of your difference right away.

    However, the average teaching time would be 5 hours rather than 5.30 as well, so very slightly shorter.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Sandpit, I wonder if Johnson's a bigger risk to Clinton than Trump.

    Trump has a lot of passionate supporters and opponents. Clinton seems to have a largely lukewarm, but broader, level of support. Might they be likelier to peel off for a third party chap?
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Alistair said:

    GeoffM said:

    I know its Dacre'ite click porn.

    http://dailym.ai/2bEIbpl.

    But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.

    Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
    Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
    A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
    By "free" you actually mean "paid for by everyone including those without children", yes?
    Yes, because children grow up to be tax payers and the better start hey have in life the more tax they pay later.
    Finland also spends 60% of its GDP on public services, I'm not sure that the British public would want tax increases worth 22% of GDP. It would be a brave government who tries anyway.
  • Options
    Ed Miliband will be delighted with this news

    Brexit pushes up price of a bacon butty as China takes advantage of weak sterling to buy British pork

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/brexit-pushes-up-price-of-bacon/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    PBers not unduly interested in POTUS 2016 need only refer to FOP.

    FOP - Florida .. Ohio .. Pennsylvania.

    Trump requires all 3 or it's over.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/OLW4A

  • Options
    JackW said:

    PBers not unduly interested in POTUS 2016 need only refer to FOP.

    FOP - Florida .. Ohio .. Pennsylvania.

    Trump requires all 3 or it's over.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/OLW4A

    Surely FAP might be more interesting.

    Florida Arizona Pennsylvania
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:



    It's weird because kids today all finish at 3, when I was at school it was 8:30 to 4:00 they must have shortened the school day since then.

    I would guess you had an hour plus for lunch? Most schools especially comprehensives only have 20-30 minutes as extra-curricular has withered away and they twigged that about 75% of all serious bullying incidents happened in the second half of lunch hours.
    I think this was the school day:

    8:30 - register, house
    8:45 - assembly, main hall
    9:00 - period 1
    10:00 - period 2
    11:00 - break
    11:30 - period 3 (double session, usually PE or technology class)
    13:00 - lunch
    14:00 - period 4
    15:00 - period 5
    16:00 - end

    The school library was open until 5pm though so anyone who's parents couldn't pick them up until later would usually just hang around there doing homework for an hour, but most people got the bus home.
    So 90 minutes of breaks. The average now would I think be an hour (20+40) but there are plenty where it doesn't clear 45 minutes - and there's a big chunk of your difference right away.

    However, the average teaching time would be 5 hours rather than 5.30 as well, so very slightly shorter.
    Yeah, for sure, but I think the breaks were necessary and fun. I don't understand why schools have moved away from this kind of day in favour of a shorter day with fewer breaks and less teaching time. It would be a massive help to working parents as well. I know my school might have been the outlier with the later opening library, but other schools could easily follow suit.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Mr. Sandpit, I wonder if Johnson's a bigger risk to Clinton than Trump.

    Trump has a lot of passionate supporters and opponents. Clinton seems to have a largely lukewarm, but broader, level of support. Might they be likelier to peel off for a third party chap?

    No but Johnson (and no-hopers in general) might pose a risk to other Democrats if it means anti-Trump GOP voters now turn out and vote non-Trump plus all the down-ticket Republicans, rather than sitting at home.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836

    IanB2 said:

    The utility bill figures are strikingly high, even allowing for some of the bigger ticket items like council tax. My guess is that 'insurance' includes life insurance payments for some of the families, as well as buildings, travel and car, and mobile phone bills include phones and calls for all the family.

    I’d have thought Life/Household/Loss of Job insurance are prerequisite if there's a mortgage.
    Probably private health cover too to get to that figure.
    The first family are paying £6-700 a month more than the others for utilities. It must be something like PHI and/or private pension.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    PBers not unduly interested in POTUS 2016 need only refer to FOP.

    FOP - Florida .. Ohio .. Pennsylvania.

    Trump requires all 3 or it's over.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/OLW4A

    Surely FAP might be more interesting.

    Florida Arizona Pennsylvania

    JackW said:

    PBers not unduly interested in POTUS 2016 need only refer to FOP.

    FOP - Florida .. Ohio .. Pennsylvania.

    Trump requires all 3 or it's over.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/OLW4A

    Surely FAP might be more interesting.

    Florida Arizona Pennsylvania
    CRAP - California Rhode island Alaska Pennsylvania
This discussion has been closed.