I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
Shocking how the reputations of these poor chaps have been so traduced. No wonder they wanted that mocked up photo of them in full Bullingdon rig suppressed.
Being in the bullingdon is pretty irrelevant because they don't claim to be the same people as when they smashed restaurants when drunk or whatever. Corbyn's supporters make a big deal of him thinking the same things for 30 years. So his views back then are relevant as unless he confirms otherwise we've been programmed to assume he still means it. It's not difficult to grasp and seems fair given the moralising about firmness of principle that different standards apply because by claiming to be more principled they invite higher standards.
But if past statements are to be discounted, then it is fair to discount past actions like being in the bullingdon as well, and yet people try to act as though the past should be ignored only for one. Tories certainly do it too, but under Corbyn they have greater justification.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
It can also be an airplane
Strictly speaking, a leading pair of winglets on an aeroplane. But can be used for an aeroplane using such a system.
Similar threats were made when Wilson was PM and came to nothing, I doubt we are going to become Egypt just yet
So if Corbyn is elected PM there will be a military coup.
No, as I said there was no coup against Wilson in the end
Not that I expect a coup against Corbyn (1: he won't be elected, 2: we don't do coups) but Wilson never went through with unilateral nuclear disarmament or diminishing the military or pulling out of NATO. Not the same thing.
Interesting point from Hitchens that no one else seems to have thought about. We assume all soldiers are monarchists and patriots, , but are they? My own grandfather (died before I was born) was a bit of a commie who was sunk on the Ark Royal during WW2 for instance
'And I might add, these freedoms were what the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots saved when they won the Battle of Britain. Some of them may have been unsure about the Monarchy, if they’d had time to think about it. And I wonder how many of the soldiers who slogged doggedly through the Western Desert, Burma, Italy and Normandy were a bit Left-wing, too.
The world’s full of countries where you have to salute the leader and sing the party song in public. This isn’t one of them, so to hell with all the superpatriots who condemned Jeremy Corbyn for not singing God Save The Queen.'
Mr. Hitchens may have a point with regard to the armed forces of WW2. However, that was a period of universal conscription. I doubt you would find such a range of views in today's very small and totally volunteer forces. The position of the monarchy in the eyes of the service men and women is, I would think, absolutely nailed on. They have after all individually, freely and voluntarily taken a personal oath to serve HMtQ, her heirs and successors.
Hitchens? He just set up a straw man to knock it down. Thanks to history, the constitutional monarchy is the embodiment of our nation. It's no sin to sing our national anthem. If anyone wants to show themselves up by their approach to it then that's their problem.
It seems to me that the business case for HS2, never very robust, has now been holed below the waterline and the project is descending into a farce kept going only to save the vanity of certain politicians. However, I would be grateful for your views.
I've said many times on here that the thing that may kill HS2 is Euston. It's a hard problem to solve. Then again, I don't necessarily agree with Gilligan's take on HS2, which is always relentlessly negative.
As I said to Mr Tyndall the other week when discussing it, let's wait for the revised plans to be released.
On the other hand, the need for more capacity is real, and the other proposed solutions are not as good at addressing it as HS2. If HS2 is shelved and we do nothing to solve those problems, we're storing big problems up for ourselves.
It seems that we're becoming a much less ambitious country than we used to be, talking more about things we cannot do (Boris Island, even Heathrow, HS2) than what we can, and perhaps should, do.
Mr. J., Your final paragraph definitely strikes a cord. If we do need a new railway into London then perhaps we should just build one and damn the expense. Give all the people whose homes are to be demolished for a new station next to Euston £1m each and watch the objections disappear. The additional cost on a project costing tens of billions will be lost, so small as not even to be a rounding error.
Of, course there is that matter of "if we need" a new railway line. I have to say I am not convinced we do. So how do we decide whether we do or not? Well, the business case is probably the best method yet devised, but the one for HS2 looks as if it shows we don't need such a railway.
First real exit poll numbers from my sources on the greek election:
Syriza 32 ND 31.5 Nazis 7 PASOK 6 Communists 5.5 River 4.5 Independent Greeks 3 Peoples Union 3 Union of Centrists 3.
Looks like a long night.
How can there be an exit poll many hours before the close of polls? And that's too close it would make a world of difference between Syriza 32 and ND 31.5 vs ND 32 and Syriza 31.5 due to the top up bonus the winner gets.
There should be a name for the amount of time it takes for someone to read a post, Google something and then formulate a reply to try to discredit the post.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
it already does via the tax system.
Not sure what you are specifically referring to, but in general I'm all for simplifying the tax system and reducing the deadweight cost of benefits.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
It subsides well-off pensioners so why not? I wouldn't have a problem means-testing it though to the poorest families - but from what I can see Osborne is getting rid of the scheme completely so many poor children will lose out.
Poor children still get free school meals.
And I'm not a fan of some of the universal benefits that pensioners get (or Whataboutery)
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
So time to end charitable status for private schools?
Not provided that they can justify their charitable status. Providing education to paying customers is not, on its own, a sufficient public good.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
So time to end charitable status for private schools?
There are those in the public school system that would welcome such a move. Maintaining charitable status has become a burden that for many schools is a game no longer worth the candle. People who advocate this as some sort of attack on private education really need to think through what the likely results would be.
The likely results would be private schools end bursary and scholarship programmes and become even more exclusive enclaves of those with very wealthy parents. There are some in the public school system who would welcome that so they do not have to bother with any attempts at 'outreach' just put their fees up, however in social mobility terms it would be less beneficial
Is there any data on who gets these bursaries and scholarships, or how many there are? I know very little about them except that Boris Johnson, from a very well-off family, got one. One of my very good friends - who is also exceptionally well-off - also got two of his kids privately educated on scholarships. But maybe they are the exceptions.
Probably those that know about them apply for them. I’d never heard of them before about 1990 or so, long after my children were through their education, and I’m pretty sure my elder son, who hasbeen very worried about his children’s education and looked into all sorts of options, hasn’t either.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
it already does via the tax system.
Not sure what you are specifically referring to, but in general I'm all for simplifying the tax system and reducing the deadweight cost of benefits.
I mean the tax system is littered with exclusions and subsidies that favor the rich.
If we had a reforming CoE these would have disappeared long ago, but we don't.
7% of 2015 Labour voters now voting Tory, 2% of 2015 Tory voters now voting Labour.
19% of 2015 LDs now voting Labour, 16% Tory.
Corbyn has a big lead in London where Labour leads on 44% to the Tories 32% which is good news for Khan.
The Tories have a huge lead in the South where they lead on 49% to Labour's 21%. In the Midlands and Wales the Tories also lead by 37% to 32%.
Labour leads in the North by 42% to the Tories 33%.
In Scotland the SNP have fallen back a little to 44% compared to the 50% they won at the election, Corbyn has increased Labour's total from 24% to 28% and the Tories are also up in Scotland on 21% compared to the 15% they won in May
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
It subsides well-off pensioners so why not? I wouldn't have a problem means-testing it though to the poorest families - but from what I can see Osborne is getting rid of the scheme completely so many poor children will lose out.
Poor children still get free school meals.
And I'm not a fan of some of the universal benefits that pensioners get (or Whataboutery)
I'm aware that poor children still get them now, but Osborne is planning to scrap free school meals.
It would clearly be a significant risk to give Corbyn access to confidential, security-related information. If it were me I would not let him near it. If he had to be given it, then foreign governments are going to be much more reluctant to share info with the UK.
If the Tories deny him the relevant briefings it would set a precedent that a future Labour Govt could use in relation to Tory Opposition Leaders.
It would clearly be a significant risk to give Corbyn access to confidential, security-related information. If it were me I would not let him near it. If he had to be given it, then foreign governments are going to be much more reluctant to share info with the UK.
If the Tories deny him the relevant briefings it would set a precedent that a future Labour Govt could use in relation to Tory Opposition Leaders.
you mean like pretending their are WMD when there aren't ?
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
So time to end charitable status for private schools?
There are those in the public school system that would welcome such a move. Maintaining charitable status has become a burden that for many schools is a game no longer worth the candle. People who advocate this as some sort of attack on private education really need to think through what the likely results would be.
The likely results would be private schools end bursary and scholarship programmes and become even more exclusive enclaves of those with very wealthy parents. There are some in the public school system who would welcome that so they do not have to bother with any attempts at 'outreach' just put their fees up, however in social mobility terms it would be less beneficial
Is there any data on who gets these bursaries and scholarships, or how many there are? I know very little about them except that Boris Johnson, from a very well-off family, got one. One of my very good friends - who is also exceptionally well-off - also got two of his kids privately educated on scholarships. But maybe they are the exceptions.
To get a scholarship for their child the parents first need to know that such scholarships exist. The children who would benefit from them need to be encouraged to go for them. If not enough children from modest backgrounds are even competing the cause is more likely to be found in their teachers in the state sector.
Mind you none of this is new. One of my heroes, Godfrey Hardy, got his scholarship to Winchester because his parents were both school teachers and knew the system (Hardy was born in 1877).
It seems to me that the business case for HS2, never very robust, has now been holed below the waterline and the project is descending into a farce kept going only to save the vanity of certain politicians. However, I would be grateful for your views.
I've said many times on here that the thing that may kill HS2 is Euston. It's a hard problem to solve. Then again, I don't necessarily agree with Gilligan's take on HS2, which is always relentlessly negative.
As I said to Mr Tyndall the other week when discussing it, let's wait for the revised plans to be released.
On the other hand, the need for more capacity is real, and the other proposed solutions are not as good at addressing it as HS2. If HS2 is shelved and we do nothing to solve those problems, we're storing big problems up for ourselves.
It seems that we're becoming a much less ambitious country than we used to be, talking more about things we cannot do (Boris Island, even Heathrow, HS2) than what we can, and perhaps should, do.
Mr. J., Your final paragraph definitely strikes a cord. If we do need a new railway into London then perhaps we should just build one and damn the expense. Give all the people whose homes are to be demolished for a new station next to Euston £1m each and watch the objections disappear. The additional cost on a project costing tens of billions will be lost, so small as not even to be a rounding error.
Of, course there is that matter of "if we need" a new railway line. I have to say I am not convinced we do. So how do we decide whether we do or not? Well, the business case is probably the best method yet devised, but the one for HS2 looks as if it shows we don't need such a railway.
We may not need it now, but we'll desperately need it in 20 years. To wait until then - to wait until the urgent current need forces it - to start building would be to repeat the mistakes of Crossrail and TL2K.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
It subsides well-off pensioners so why not? I wouldn't have a problem means-testing it though to the poorest families - but from what I can see Osborne is getting rid of the scheme completely so many poor children will lose out.
Poor children still get free school meals.
And I'm not a fan of some of the universal benefits that pensioners get (or Whataboutery)
... but Osborne is planning to scrap free school meals.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
So time to end charitable status for private schools?
There are those in the public school system that would welcome such a move. Maintaining charitable status has become a burden that for many schools is a game no longer worth the candle. People who advocate this as some sort of attack on private education really need to think through what the likely results would be.
The likely results would be private schools end bursary and scholarship programmes and become even more exclusive enclaves of those with very wealthy parents. There are some in the public school system who would welcome that so they do not have to bother with any attempts at 'outreach' just put their fees up, however in social mobility terms it would be less beneficial
Is there any data on who gets these bursaries and scholarships, or how many there are? I know very little about them except that Boris Johnson, from a very well-off family, got one. One of my very good friends - who is also exceptionally well-off - also got two of his kids privately educated on scholarships. But maybe they are the exceptions.
Private schools used to offer scholarships based entirely on academic merit, so even if your father was the Duke of Westminster you could have got a scholarship if bright enough, now the focus is on bursaries which are almost exclusively means tested
Similar threats were made when Wilson was PM and came to nothing, I doubt we are going to become Egypt just yet
So if Corbyn is elected PM there will be a military coup.
No, as I said there was no coup against Wilson in the end
Not that I expect a coup against Corbyn (1: he won't be elected, 2: we don't do coups) but Wilson never went through with unilateral nuclear disarmament or diminishing the military or pulling out of NATO. Not the same thing.
Indeed, though he did keep the UK out of the Vietnam War
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
Shocking how the reputations of these poor chaps have been so traduced. No wonder they wanted that mocked up photo of them in full Bullingdon rig suppressed.
Being in the bullingdon is pretty irrelevant because they don't claim to be the same people as when they smashed restaurants when drunk or whatever. Corbyn's supporters make a big deal of him thinking the same things for 30 years. So his views back then are relevant as unless he confirms otherwise we've been programmed to assume he still means it. It's not difficult to grasp and seems fair given the moralising about firmness of principle that different standards apply because by claiming to be more principled they invite higher standards.
But if past statements are to be discounted, then it is fair to discount past actions like being in the bullingdon as well, and yet people try to act as though the past should be ignored only for one. Tories certainly do it too, but under Corbyn they have greater justification.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
It can also be an airplane
Strictly speaking, a leading pair of winglets on an aeroplane. But can be used for an aeroplane using such a system.
The 'canard' is about the activities of the Bullingdon club. There are lots of university drinking or dining clubs, like 'The Steamers' for instance, and in all universities. And Balls got to Oxford via a private education. I know the photographer who took the Cameron/ Osborne photo and the only reason it was withdrawn after its initial publication was for breach of copywrite. You can see umpteen photos in pubs in Oxford of similar clubs, all posed the same way. It's a tradition dating back to the early days of photography. I can point you to a famous photo of captured confederate prisoners after Gettysburg which is posed in exactly the same way. Despite all the furore over 'smashed restaurants' you only find one example quoted over and over in the press of an exploit by 'alleged' Bullingdon members.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
It subsides well-off pensioners so why not? I wouldn't have a problem means-testing it though to the poorest families - but from what I can see Osborne is getting rid of the scheme completely so many poor children will lose out.
Poor children still get free school meals.
And I'm not a fan of some of the universal benefits that pensioners get (or Whataboutery)
... but Osborne is planning to scrap free school meals.
Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.
If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.
Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?
Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money
.....The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on
Quaint it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.
Osborne making another blunder. It should have not been in the manifesto if there was a chance of dropping it.
Let us hope that Ozzie continues to make such "blunders" and that laissez fair obesity deniers like yourself are thinned out.
Obesity is mainly due to a lack of burning calories. We eat less calories now than the past.
Good morning all. I treated myself to a Fitbit last Christmas - probably one of the most useful gadgets I've ever owned. It's horrifying how few calories we burn - I'm sure most people overestimate the effect that exercise has.
I'm losing weight, but only if I walk (at least) 10 miles and row 10k per day. That's on an intake of between 1.5k and 2k calories per day, which is not exactly sybaritic. I doubt I'd have been able to consistently achieve that level of activity when I was a working slob.
I was in Costas yesterday. They had a coffee and walnut cake to have with your coffee. My favourite as it happens. This cake had 2501 calories. More than a man should have in a day. It is incredibly easy to eat too many calories. Somewhat sadly I had dried fruit instead.
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
Shocking how the reputations of these poor chaps have been so traduced. No wonder they wanted that mocked up photo of them in full Bullingdon rig suppressed.
Being in the bullingdon is pretty irrelevant because they don't claim to be the same people as when they smashed restaurants when drunk or whatever. Corbyn's supporters make a big deal of him thinking the same things for 30 years. So his views back then are relevant as unless he confirms otherwise we've been programmed to assume he still means it. It's not difficult to grasp and seems fair given the moralising about firmness of principle that different standards apply because by claiming to be more principled they invite higher standards.
But if past statements are to be discounted, then it is fair to discount past actions like being in the bullingdon as well, and yet people try to act as though the past should be ignored only for one. Tories certainly do it too, but under Corbyn they have greater justification.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
It can also be an airplane
Strictly speaking, a leading pair of winglets on an aeroplane. But can be used for an aeroplane using such a system.
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
Shocking how the reputations of these poor chaps have been so traduced. No wonder they wanted that mocked up photo of them in full Bullingdon rig suppressed.
Being in the bullingdon is pretty irrelevant because they don't claim to be the same people as when they smashed restaurants when drunk or whatever. Corbyn's supporters make a big deal of him thinking the same things for 30 years. So his views back then are relevant as unless he confirms otherwise we've been programmed to assume he still means it. It's not difficult to grasp and seems fair given the moralising about firmness of principle that different standards apply because by claiming to be more principled they invite higher standards.
But if past statements are to be discounted, then it is fair to discount past actions like being in the bullingdon as well, and yet people try to act as though the past should be ignored only for one. Tories certainly do it too, but under Corbyn they have greater justification.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
It can also be an airplane
Strictly speaking, a leading pair of winglets on an aeroplane. But can be used for an aeroplane using such a system.
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
Shocking how the reputations of these poor chaps have been so traduced. No wonder they wanted that mocked up photo of them in full Bullingdon rig suppressed.
Being in the bullingdon is pretty irrelevant because they don't claim to be the same people as when they smashed restaurants when drunk or whatever. Corbyn's supporters make a big deal of him thinking the same things for 30 years. So his views back then are relevant as unless he confirms otherwise we've been programmed to assume he still means it. It's not difficult to grasp and seems fair given the moralising about firmness of principle that different standards apply because by claiming to be more principled they invite higher standards.
But if past statements are to be discounted, then it is fair to discount past actions like being in the bullingdon as well, and yet people try to act as though the past should be ignored only for one. Tories certainly do it too, but under Corbyn they have greater justification.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
I know the photographer who took the Cameron/ Osborne photo and the only reason it was withdrawn after its initial publication was for breach of copywrite. You can see umpteen photos in pubs in Oxford of similar clubs, all posed the same way. It's a tradition dating back to the early days of photography. I can point you to a famous photo of captured confederate prisoners after Gettysburg which is posed in exactly the same way. Despite all the furore over 'smashed restaurants' you only find one example quoted over and over in the press of an exploit by 'alleged' Bullingdon members.
Your excuses are not working , we all know they are rich oiks who like to rub people's noses in their wealth and privilege.
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
Shocking how the reputations of these poor chaps have been so traduced. No wonder they wanted that mocked up photo of them in full Bullingdon rig suppressed.
Being in the bullingdon is pretty irrelevant because they don't claim to be the same people as when they smashed restaurants when drunk or whatever. Corbyn's supporters make a big deal of him thinking the same things for 30 years. So his views back then are relevant as unless he confirms otherwise we've been programmed to assume he still means it. It's not difficult to grasp and seems fair given the moralising about firmness of principle that different standards apply because by claiming to be more principled they invite higher standards.
But if past statements are to be discounted, then it is fair to discount past actions like being in the bullingdon as well, and yet people try to act as though the past should be ignored only for one. Tories certainly do it too, but under Corbyn they have greater justification.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
It can also be an airplane
Strictly speaking, a leading pair of winglets on an aeroplane. But can be used for an aeroplane using such a system.
... I know the photographer who took the Cameron/ Osborne photo and the only reason it was withdrawn after its initial publication was for breach of copywrite. ...
Yes - on those figures Labour would rise to 249 with the Tories down to 313. A minority Tory Government would be struggling to survive.
It would also have the backing of 11 DUP, UUP and UKIP MPs taking it to 324 while Labour and the SNP and SDLP and SF and PC and Greens and LDs combined would amount to exactly the same total. Comres and yougov last night had a swing to the Tories which would see them gain Labour seats
Indeed - But ComRes is rather out of line with the three other pollsters and has been consistently so since May. I suspect that the ICM poll is the most interesting - and revealing.
7% of 2015 Labour voters now voting Tory, 2% of 2015 Tory voters now voting Labour.
19% of 2015 LDs now voting Labour, 16% Tory.
Corbyn has a big lead in London where Labour leads on 44% to the Tories 32% which is good news for Khan.
The Tories have a huge lead in the South where they lead on 49% to Labour's 21%. In the Midlands and Wales the Tories also lead by 37% to 32%.
Labour leads in the North by 42% to the Tories 33%.
In Scotland the SNP have fallen back a little to 44% compared to the 50% they won at the election, Corbyn has increased Labour's total from 24% to 28% and the Tories are also up in Scotland on 21% compared to the 15% they won in May
Bit desperate quoting a teeny weeny sub sample in Scotland, MOE will be at least double or treble the change. You would have been banned for that in the distant past. Are you announcing another Tory surge perhaps.
Mr. J., Your final paragraph definitely strikes a cord. If we do need a new railway into London then perhaps we should just build one and damn the expense. Give all the people whose homes are to be demolished for a new station next to Euston £1m each and watch the objections disappear. The additional cost on a project costing tens of billions will be lost, so small as not even to be a rounding error.
Of, course there is that matter of "if we need" a new railway line. I have to say I am not convinced we do. So how do we decide whether we do or not? Well, the business case is probably the best method yet devised, but the one for HS2 looks as if it shows we don't need such a railway.
You have a good point about compensation for people who are directly and indirectly affected by such schemes: the current compensations scheme is miserly, especially when compared to the project costs. We need not be so miserly, although I think £1 million per house might be going a little too far,
I thought the business case showed we needed a new railway, even if the BCR was lowered a couple of years ago.
Many of the railways (and even roads) that we as a society rely on to this day never really showed a direct profit for the people who built them - Brunel himself was someone whose brilliant grandiose ambition ruined others. Yet their loss all those years ago has been a massive benefit to society.
We are sometimes all too lacking in ambition in this country. Take the motorways: the M25 should, with hindsight, have been built with more lanes, and the M5 was expanded to three lanes from two shortly after it was built. We are replicating these faults with other infrastructure. The cost of this shortsightedness has been massive.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
It subsides well-off pensioners so why not? I wouldn't have a problem means-testing it though to the poorest families - but from what I can see Osborne is getting rid of the scheme completely so many poor children will lose out.
Poor children still get free school meals.
And I'm not a fan of some of the universal benefits that pensioners get (or Whataboutery)
... but Osborne is planning to scrap free school meals.
Miss, that article does not support your initial claim. The scheme to provide free school meals for every infant school pupil regardless of need is under threat. However, that is not the same as removing free school meals from those of modest backgrounds (as already happens for those children aged 8 and above).
A thought occurs: if compulsory school dinners are such a good idea for infant schools, what makes them a bad idea for children aged 8 to 18?
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
It subsides well-off pensioners so why not? I wouldn't have a problem means-testing it though to the poorest families - but from what I can see Osborne is getting rid of the scheme completely so many poor children will lose out.
Poor children still get free school meals.
And I'm not a fan of some of the universal benefits that pensioners get (or Whataboutery)
... but Osborne is planning to scrap free school meals.
Miss, that article does not support your initial claim. The scheme to provide free school meals for every infant school pupil regardless of need is under threat. However, that is not the same as removing free school meals from those of modest backgrounds (as already happens for those children aged 8 and above).
A thought occurs: if compulsory school dinners are such a good idea for infant schools, what makes them a bad idea for children aged 8 to 18?
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
Shocking how the reputations of these poor chaps have been so traduced. No wonder they wanted that mocked up photo of them in full Bullingdon rig suppressed.
Being in the bullingdon is pretty irrelevant because they don't claim to be the same people as when they smashed restaurants when drunk or whatever. Corbyn's supporters make a big deal of him thinking the same things for 30 years. So his views back then are relevant as unless he confirms otherwise we've been programmed to assume he still means it. It's not difficult to grasp and seems fair given the moralising about firmness of principle that different standards apply because by claiming to be more principled they invite higher standards.
But if past statements are to be discounted, then it is fair to discount past actions like being in the bullingdon as well, and yet people try to act as though the past should be ignored only for one. Tories certainly do it too, but under Corbyn they have greater justification.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
It can also be an airplane
Strictly speaking, a leading pair of winglets on an aeroplane. But can be used for an aeroplane using such a system.
Mr. J., Your final paragraph definitely strikes a cord. If we do need a new railway into London then perhaps we should just build one and damn the expense. Give all the people whose homes are to be demolished for a new station next to Euston £1m each and watch the objections disappear. The additional cost on a project costing tens of billions will be lost, so small as not even to be a rounding error.
Of, course there is that matter of "if we need" a new railway line. I have to say I am not convinced we do. So how do we decide whether we do or not? Well, the business case is probably the best method yet devised, but the one for HS2 looks as if it shows we don't need such a railway.
You have a good point about compensation for people who are directly and indirectly affected by such schemes: the current compensations scheme is miserly, especially when compared to the project costs. We need not be so miserly, although I think £1 million per house might be going a little too far,
I thought the business case showed we needed a new railway, even if the BCR was lowered a couple of years ago.
Many of the railways (and even roads) that we as a society rely on to this day never really showed a direct profit for the people who built them - Brunel himself was someone whose brilliant grandiose ambition ruined others. Yet their loss all those years ago has been a massive benefit to society.
We are sometimes all too lacking in ambition in this country. Take the motorways: the M25 should, with hindsight, have been built with more lanes, and the M5 was expanded to three lanes from two shortly after it was built. We are replicating these faults with other infrastructure. The cost of this shortsightedness has been massive.
£1m per house in Euston? That's a fraction of market value!
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
Shocking how the reputations of these poor chaps have been so traduced. No wonder they wanted that mocked up photo of them in full Bullingdon rig suppressed.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
It can also be an airplane
Strictly speaking, a leading pair of winglets on an aeroplane. But can be used for an aeroplane using such a system.
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
.
But if past statements are to be discounted, then it is fair to discount past actions like being in the bullingdon as well, and yet people try to act as though the past should be ignored only for one.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
Nonetheless it is the clearest picture we have of the Scottish picture, not just Scotland's votes as a proportion of those across the UK. The SNP are on 44% in today's yougov, almost exactly the same as the Yes total in indyref, so it seems that they are once again the party of the diehard nationalists while Labour is up to 28% which suggests No voting socialists have returned to the fold. The Tories are also up to 21% although that seems to have mainly come from the LDs who have collapsed to 2%.
Of course we will need to see some more polls but it does seem that while Corbyn has increased Labour's total by just 0.6% across the UK with yougov in Scotland he has increased it by 4%, coupled with Labour's biggest lead being in London it confirms what I suspected that Scotland and London would be where Corbyn made his biggest gains
We may not need it now, but we'll desperately need it in 20 years. To wait until then - to wait until the urgent current need forces it - to start building would be to repeat the mistakes of Crossrail and TL2K.
Fair point, Mr. Quidder. However the conclusion that we will definitely need HS2 in 20 years time is presumably based on some sort of analysis and assumptions about future traffic growth. Given that the railway is going to take the best part of twenty years to build one would hope that such figures have already been included in the business case. Yet nobody, it would seem. can come up with a credible positive return on investment.
So one is left with the choice between, "Feck the numbers. Let us just go for it and it will be our grandchildren paying if it doesn't work out, so who cares", and, "There is no credible financial case for the project so bin it".
Mr L a quick google on public school scholarships threw up at the top a Telegraph article from 2008 which suggested that the amount of scholarship money was being reduced. Then, anyway.
The real question must surely be how much of this childish nonsense the Shadow Cabinet can take. If it goes on like this I would give it another week. Buyers remorse must already be widespread whilst those that declined get to be equally childish and say, " I told you so."
I'm a bit reluctant to play PB Corbyn point man on a daily basis when I'm more or less retired, but I have to say I'm not aware of any buyer's remorse at all - do we have even ONE example out of hundreds of thousands of even an ordinary member saying "I voted for him but now I wish I hadn't"? I think it's sensible to concentrate on the day job rather than trying to chair an NGO at the same time, but I don't expect him to comment on every poem that anyone writes, and would think he was letting himself he hassled unnecessarily if he did.
As a Corbyn voter, I'm probably fairly typical - mildly encouraged that the polls show that the Tory onslaught hasn't had much effect so far, judging by the range of results yesterday. It was always going to be a difficult project, but we knew that and were not expecting a sunny honeymoon. There will be more awkward moments and compromises to make in the coming months, but you can't reshape British politics without some of that. Deciding whether to kneel as the price of Privy Council membership is another such - tricky but essentially peripheral to what we're trying to do. Most of us won't really care whether he kneels or not, and if the Government makes the sharing of issues of national importance hinge on that, then we'll know who to blame, and it won't be Corbyn.
What we have is not buyer's remorse but opponents' dilemma - people who didn't vote for him are torn between wanting to express their opposition and not wanting to rock the boat and be blamed for consequences. I'm not at all in the "let's start deselecting Blairites" camp, but I do expect internal opponents largely to STFU except by making specific policy proposals, and by and large that's what they're doing.
By the way, is anyone around for at the Labour conference? It'd be interesting to meet up. I'm at the Tory conference as well, but only on the Tuesday when I've got a fringe meeting.
The buyers remorse I was referring to was those foolish enough to join the shadow cabinet. I think we will see resignations. The situation is simply unsustainable.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
It subsides well-off pensioners so why not? I wouldn't have a problem means-testing it though to the poorest families - but from what I can see Osborne is getting rid of the scheme completely so many poor children will lose out.
Poor children still get free school meals.
And I'm not a fan of some of the universal benefits that pensioners get (or Whataboutery)
... but Osborne is planning to scrap free school meals.
Miss, that article does not support your initial claim. The scheme to provide free school meals for every infant school pupil regardless of need is under threat. However, that is not the same as removing free school meals from those of modest backgrounds (as already happens for those children aged 8 and above).
A thought occurs: if compulsory school dinners are such a good idea for infant schools, what makes them a bad idea for children aged 8 to 18?
Okay if we going to argue over semantics: Osborne plans to scrap free school meals for under 8s regardless of need. "Set to be scrapped" and "plans to scrap" are pretty much near the same thing. Also, when I was in primary school, school dinners weren't compulsory. You could bring your packed lunch if you wanted to.
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
.
But if past statements are to be discounted, then it is fair to discount past actions like being in the bullingdon as well, and yet people try to act as though the past should be ignored only for one.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
Expect nothing less, I don't sweat the small stuff so get called out often.
If malcolm doesn't, I do.
It's a fecking subsample.
Nonetheless it is the clearest picture we have of the Scottish picture, not just Scotland's votes as a proportion of those across the UK. The SNP are on 44% in today's yougov, almost exactly the same as the Yes total in indyref, so it seems that they are once again the party of the diehard nationalists while Labour is up to 28% which suggests No voting socialists have returned to the fold. The Tories are also up to 21% although that seems to have mainly come from the LDs who have collapsed to 2%.
Of course we will need to see some more polls but it does seem that while Corbyn has increased Labour's total by just 0.6% across the UK with yougov in Scotland he has increased it by 4%, coupled with Labour's biggest lead being in London it confirms what I suspected that Scotland and London would be where Corbyn made his biggest gains
For comparison why don't you look at the ComRes Scottish subsample?
There's a reason why reading too much into such small subsamples is invariably bolllocks?
7% of 2015 Labour voters now voting Tory, 2% of 2015 Tory voters now voting Labour.
19% of 2015 LDs now voting Labour, 16% Tory.
Corbyn has a big lead in London where Labour leads on 44% to the Tories 32% which is good news for Khan.
The Tories have a huge lead in the South where they lead on 49% to Labour's 21%. In the Midlands and Wales the Tories also lead by 37% to 32%.
Labour leads in the North by 42% to the Tories 33%.
In Scotland the SNP have fallen back a little to 44% compared to the 50% they won at the election, Corbyn has increased Labour's total from 24% to 28% and the Tories are also up in Scotland on 21% compared to the 15% they won in May
Bit desperate quoting a teeny weeny sub sample in Scotland, MOE will be at least double or treble the change. You would have been banned for that in the distant past. Are you announcing another Tory surge perhaps.
How can you be banned for reporting the facts? We of course wait further polls but nonetheless first real signs of a sift back to Unionist parties since the election, with some SNP voters shifting to Labour, the Tory vote rise mainly coming from the LDs
Yes - on those figures Labour would rise to 249 with the Tories down to 313. A minority Tory Government would be struggling to survive.
It would also have the backing of 11 DUP, UUP and UKIP MPs taking it to 324 while Labour and the SNP and SDLP and SF and PC and Greens and LDs combined would amount to exactly the same total. Comres and yougov last night had a swing to the Tories which would see them gain Labour seats
Indeed - But ComRes is rather out of line with the three other pollsters and has been consistently so since May. I suspect that the ICM poll is the most interesting - and revealing.
Yougov also has a Tory lead of 8% compared to 7% in May, the ICM poll was of the 20 most marginal Tory or LD seats, not a national poll
Yes - on those figures Labour would rise to 249 with the Tories down to 313. A minority Tory Government would be struggling to survive.
It would also have the backing of 11 DUP, UUP and UKIP MPs taking it to 324 while Labour and the SNP and SDLP and SF and PC and Greens and LDs combined would amount to exactly the same total. Comres and yougov last night had a swing to the Tories which would see them gain Labour seats
Indeed - But ComRes is rather out of line with the three other pollsters and has been consistently so since May. I suspect that the ICM poll is the most interesting - and revealing.
Yougov also has a Tory lead of 8% compared to 7% in May, the ICM poll was of the 20 most marginal Tory or LD seats, not a national poll
It’s a long, long time to the next GE. And while not quite as long to locals, Aeemblies etc, we’ve still to get past Christmas.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
It subsides well-off pensioners so why not? I wouldn't have a problem means-testing it though to the poorest families - but from what I can see Osborne is getting rid of the scheme completely so many poor children will lose out.
Poor children still get free school meals.
And I'm not a fan of some of the universal benefits that pensioners get (or Whataboutery)
... but Osborne is planning to scrap free school meals.
Miss, that article does not support your initial claim. The scheme to provide free school meals for every infant school pupil regardless of need is under threat. However, that is not the same as removing free school meals from those of modest backgrounds (as already happens for those children aged 8 and above).
A thought occurs: if compulsory school dinners are such a good idea for infant schools, what makes them a bad idea for children aged 8 to 18?
Why not free meals for adults
Because you aren't at a point where you are rapidly growing with another 75 years of life in front of you which will be quite significantly helped by the project.
And because adults are expected to take responsibility for themselves :-)
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc).
Canard? So Dave, Boris & George weren't members of the Bullingdon then?
.
But if past statements are to be discounted, then it is fair to discount past actions like being in the bullingdon as well, and yet people try to act as though the past should be ignored only for one.
Canard means something that is false or untrue. Trying to frame a fact as a canard is a canard in itself.
I apologise then, I thought it meant just something negative
Expect nothing less, I don't sweat the small stuff so get called out often.
If malcolm doesn't, I do.
It's a fecking subsample.
Of course we will need to see some more polls but it does seem that while Corbyn has increased Labour's total by just 0.6% across the UK with yougov in Scotland he has increased it by 4%, coupled with Labour's biggest lead being in London it confirms what I suspected that Scotland and London would be where Corbyn made his biggest gains
For comparison why don't you look at the ComRes Scottish subsample?
There's a reason why reading too much into such small subsamples is invariably bolllocks?
Comres subsamples are generally rubbish, for example today's has the Tories leading in the north and London, although even Comres has the SNP down a fraction in Scotland
We may not need it now, but we'll desperately need it in 20 years. To wait until then - to wait until the urgent current need forces it - to start building would be to repeat the mistakes of Crossrail and TL2K.
Fair point, Mr. Quidder. However the conclusion that we will definitely need HS2 in 20 years time is presumably based on some sort of analysis and assumptions about future traffic growth. Given that the railway is going to take the best part of twenty years to build one would hope that such figures have already been included in the business case. Yet nobody, it would seem. can come up with a credible positive return on investment.
So one is left with the choice between, "Feck the numbers. Let us just go for it and it will be our grandchildren paying if it doesn't work out, so who cares", and, "There is no credible financial case for the project so bin it".
There's a third option: if we don't do it, our economy in twenty, thirty or more years will be hurt because we will not be able to do business efficiently, as people will not be able to move around. That includes 'personal' business as well as economic business. Think of the damage done to the economy by all those traffic jams on the M25.
I also think you're being a little harsh on the business case and need. BCRs are always difficult to ascertain, but even the revised figures are positive.
Rail traffic levels have increased over the last few years, as predicted (if anything, I think they've exceeded projections. It'll be interesting to see if the decrease in petrol prices at the pumps will have any affect on passenger numbers over the current period.
It also needs to be remembered that piecemeal changes to the rail network are massively costly, as we are seeing with the current problematic electrification schemes, and the disastrous WCML upgrade scheme of a decade ago.
Nonetheless it is the clearest picture we have of the Scottish picture, not just Scotland's votes as a proportion of those across the UK. The SNP are on 44% in today's yougov, almost exactly the same as the Yes total in indyref, so it seems that they are once again the party of the diehard nationalists while Labour is up to 28% which suggests No voting socialists have returned to the fold. The Tories are also up to 21% although that seems to have mainly come from the LDs who have collapsed to 2%.
Of course we will need to see some more polls but it does seem that while Corbyn has increased Labour's total by just 0.6% across the UK with yougov in Scotland he has increased it by 4%, coupled with Labour's biggest lead being in London it confirms what I suspected that Scotland and London would be where Corbyn made his biggest gains
Apologies if I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall you fluffing up a SLab 3pt increase in a Scottish subsample just after Murphy took charge. How did that work out for you?
JosiasJessop I know you are a big advocate for railways but what about the impact of driverless cars on the demand for travel less than 150 miles? For many in the South that want to go to destinations that far from London they would rather go direct than losing an hour or two getting into London.
We may not need it now, but we'll desperately need it in 20 years. To wait until then - to wait until the urgent current need forces it - to start building would be to repeat the mistakes of Crossrail and TL2K.
Fair point, Mr. Quidder. However the conclusion that we will definitely need HS2 in 20 years time is presumably based on some sort of analysis and assumptions about future traffic growth. Given that the railway is going to take the best part of twenty years to build one would hope that such figures have already been included in the business case. Yet nobody, it would seem. can come up with a credible positive return on investment.
So one is left with the choice between, "Feck the numbers. Let us just go for it and it will be our grandchildren paying if it doesn't work out, so who cares", and, "There is no credible financial case for the project so bin it".
I am merely applying common sense. Which I wouldn't expect a government report to.
Okay if we going to argue over semantics: Osborne plans to scrap free school meals for under 8s regardless of need. "Set to be scrapped" and "plans to scrap" are pretty much near the same thing. Also, when I was in primary school, school dinners weren't compulsory. You could bring your packed lunch if you wanted to.
Ok, I'll try this slowly. At present infant school children, i.e. those aged 7 or under, all get free school dinners - they are not allowed to bring in packed lunches. Until the current scheme was introduced those from more modest backgrounds were entitled to free school dinners and the rest, depending on the facilities available in the school, either paid or brought their own lunch.
Your claim was that all infant school children would be denied free school meals under new plans from Osborne. I asked for a source . You gave me a source that said the scheme to provide all infant school pupils with free meals would be abolished but not that such meals would be removed from pupils from more modest backgrounds.
On whether Osborne's scheme, if it actually exists, if a good or bad idea, I make no comment. Your claim that it is his intention to remove free school meals from all pupils, i.e. regardless of parental means, does not stand - at least not on the evidence you have presented.
Nonetheless it is the clearest picture we have of the Scottish picture, not just Scotland's votes as a proportion of those across the UK. The SNP are on 44% in today's yougov, almost exactly the same as the Yes total in indyref, so it seems that they are once again the party of the diehard nationalists while Labour is up to 28% which suggests No voting socialists have returned to the fold. The Tories are also up to 21% although that seems to have mainly come from the LDs who have collapsed to 2%.
Of course we will need to see some more polls but it does seem that while Corbyn has increased Labour's total by just 0.6% across the UK with yougov in Scotland he has increased it by 4%, coupled with Labour's biggest lead being in London it confirms what I suspected that Scotland and London would be where Corbyn made his biggest gains
For comparison why don't you look at the ComRes Scottish subsample?
There's a reason why reading too much into such small subsamples is invariably bolllocks?
Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18% Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?
Nonetheless it is the clearest picture we have of the Scottish picture, not just Scotland's votes as a proportion of those across the UK. The SNP are on 44% in today's yougov, almost exactly the same as the Yes total in indyref, so it seems that they are once again the party of the diehard nationalists while Labour is up to 28% which suggests No voting socialists have returned to the fold. The Tories are also up to 21% although that seems to have mainly come from the LDs who have collapsed to 2%.
Of course we will need to see some more polls but it does seem that while Corbyn has increased Labour's total by just 0.6% across the UK with yougov in Scotland he has increased it by 4%, coupled with Labour's biggest lead being in London it confirms what I suspected that Scotland and London would be where Corbyn made his biggest gains
Apologies if I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall you fluffing up a SLab 3pt increase in a Scottish subsample just after Murphy took charge. How did that work out for you?
The SNP as far as I recall were not down in that subsample and this Corbyn bounce is more than any Murphy got. The Tories are also up in Scotland too
Yes - on those figures Labour would rise to 249 with the Tories down to 313. A minority Tory Government would be struggling to survive.
It would also have the backing of 11 DUP, UUP and UKIP MPs taking it to 324 while Labour and the SNP and SDLP and SF and PC and Greens and LDs combined would amount to exactly the same total. Comres and yougov last night had a swing to the Tories which would see them gain Labour seats
Indeed - But ComRes is rather out of line with the three other pollsters and has been consistently so since May. I suspect that the ICM poll is the most interesting - and revealing.
Yougov also has a Tory lead of 8% compared to 7% in May, the ICM poll was of the 20 most marginal Tory or LD seats, not a national poll
It’s a long, long time to the next GE. And while not quite as long to locals, Aeemblies etc, we’ve still to get past Christmas.
Indeed, but looking at all the polls the early trend relative to the general election seems to be Labour is fractionally up under Corbyn, but the Tories up by more, the LDs and Greens are down, as are the SNP and UKIP are up too
'Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18% Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?'
Comres also has the Tories ahead in London, the North and Wales, Labour have never been behind in Wales at a general election since 1918, yougov has Labour ahead in the North and London, the Tories ahead in the Midlands and South and the SNP ahead in Scotland, but by a smaller margin. Yougov's subsamples seem far more realistic to me
Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18% Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?
There have actually been a few subsamples showing SCons ahead of SLab. If you want a punt, you can get 3/1 with Lads on SCons most seats without SNP, pretty mean imo.
Ok, I'll try this slowly. At present infant school children, i.e. those aged 7 or under, all get free school dinners - they are not allowed to bring in packed lunches. Until the current scheme was introduced those from more modest backgrounds were entitled to free school dinners and the rest, depending on the facilities available in the school, either paid or brought their own lunch.
Your claim was that all infant school children would be denied free school meals under new plans from Osborne. I asked for a source . You gave me a source that said the scheme to provide all infant school pupils with free meals would be abolished but not that such meals would be removed from pupils from more modest backgrounds.
On whether Osborne's scheme, if it actually exists, if a good or bad idea, I make no comment. Your claim that it is his intention to remove free school meals from all pupils, i.e. regardless of parental means, does not stand - at least not on the evidence you have presented.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28981684 According to this; taking up free school meals is not mandatory. It is up to schools to decide their polices on packed lunches. So your claim that packed lunches are not allowed to be brought in does not stand. The link is from last year btw. As for the access to free school meals I adjusted my claim in a previous post to you: and my earlier link does support that.
JosiasJessop I know you are a big advocate for railways but what about the impact of driverless cars on the demand for travel less than 150 miles? For many in the South that want to go to destinations that far from London they would rather go direct than losing an hour or two getting into London.
Driverless cars are not going to be replacing drivers for quite a while. Even Google's much-publicised driverless cars are a bit smoke-and-mirrors as they're not really trying to tackle city driving yet, which is where the hardest and most complex problems can be found.
Driverless cars may eventually cause problems for other transport systems. Although taxi drivers are probably the most nervous ...
(BTW, I'd love usable, safe and economic driverless cars. The idea of being driven to the start of a walk, do the walk, and have the car pick me up at the end if brilliant. Although I do have such a system at the moment, it requires flowers and meals out as payment!)
Okay if we going to argue over semantics: Osborne plans to scrap free school meals for under 8s regardless of need. "Set to be scrapped" and "plans to scrap" are pretty much near the same thing. Also, when I was in primary school, school dinners weren't compulsory. You could bring your packed lunch if you wanted to.
Ok, I'll try this slowly. At present infant school children, i.e. those aged 7 or under, all get free school dinners - they are not allowed to bring in packed lunches. Until the current scheme was introduced those from more modest backgrounds were entitled to free school dinners and the rest, depending on the facilities available in the school, either paid or brought their own lunch.
Your claim was that all infant school children would be denied free school meals under new plans from Osborne. I asked for a source . You gave me a source that said the scheme to provide all infant school pupils with free meals would be abolished but not that such meals would be removed from pupils from more modest backgrounds.
On whether Osborne's scheme, if it actually exists, if a good or bad idea, I make no comment. Your claim that it is his intention to remove free school meals from all pupils, i.e. regardless of parental means, does not stand - at least not on the evidence you have presented.
HerstLlama,
Thanks for pursuing that one. It sounded, like a groundless scare story, which is what you have shown it to be.
Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18% Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?
There have actually been a few subsamples showing SCons ahead of SLab. If you want a punt, you can get 3/1 with Lads on SCons most seats without SNP, pretty mean imo.
Although today's poll has Scottish Labour on 28% up from 24% at the election, mainly from the SNP who are down to 44%. The Scottish Tories are up from 14% to 21% but that is mainly at the expense of the LDs who are down to 2% from 7%, not Labour
Okay if we going to argue over semantics: Osborne plans to scrap free school meals for under 8s regardless of need. "Set to be scrapped" and "plans to scrap" are pretty much near the same thing. Also, when I was in primary school, school dinners weren't compulsory. You could bring your packed lunch if you wanted to.
Ok, I'll try this slowly. At present infant school children, i.e. those aged 7 or under, all get free school dinners - they are not allowed to bring in packed lunches. Until the current scheme was introduced those from more modest backgrounds were entitled to free school dinners and the rest, depending on the facilities available in the school, either paid or brought their own lunch.
Your claim was that all infant school children would be denied free school meals under new plans from Osborne. I asked for a source . You gave me a source that said the scheme to provide all infant school pupils with free meals would be abolished but not that such meals would be removed from pupils from more modest backgrounds.
On whether Osborne's scheme, if it actually exists, if a good or bad idea, I make no comment. Your claim that it is his intention to remove free school meals from all pupils, i.e. regardless of parental means, does not stand - at least not on the evidence you have presented.
HerstLlama,
Thanks for pursuing that one. It sounded, like a groundless scare story, which is what you have shown it to be.
Getting rid of free school meals for infants is a groundless scare sorry? Really?
As a side issue and related to my previous post, it will be interesting to see how an 'ideal' form of driverless cars will change things. I'm not sure it'll be a direct replacement for the way we drive at the moment.
For instance, say I needed to get from here (outside Cambridge) to Wimbledon. Would I take a driverless car all the way to the Wimbledon, or would it take me from here to Cambridge (or St Neots) station, from where I could take the tube or another driverless car to my exact destination?
Road capacity might not be helped by driverless cars; parking capacity might well be (my car could drop me off at my destination, then drive a few miles to a big parking lot. Then, when I need it, it can drive back to puck me up.)
There's also a big question about whether it would be 'my' car, or whether there would be more of a leasing/hire system.
It'll change the way we do things massively, if it can be done.
By money's on gradual changes. Production cars are already getting increasingly complex driver aids, from parking assist and automatic parking to lane departure warnings and automatic braking. I think it's more likely that these technologies will be evolved quickly until the critical mass has been reached, and the wrinkles wrung out of the system.
There's also the data side of this as well, which few people consider
Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.
If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.
Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?
Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money
.....The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on
Quaint it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.
Osborne making another blunder. It should have not been in the manifesto if there was a chance of dropping it.
Let us hope that Ozzie continues to make such "blunders" and that laissez fair obesity deniers like yourself are thinned out.
Obesity is mainly due to a lack of burning calories. We eat less calories now than the past.
Good morning all. I treated myself to a Fitbit last Christmas - probably one of the most useful gadgets I've ever owned. It's horrifying how few calories we burn - I'm sure most people overestimate the effect that exercise has.
I'm losing weight, but only if I walk (at least) 10 miles and row 10k per day. That's on an intake of between 1.5k and 2k calories per day, which is not exactly sybaritic. I doubt I'd have been able to consistently achieve that level of activity when I was a working slob.
I was in Costas yesterday. They had a coffee and walnut cake to have with your coffee. My favourite as it happens. This cake had 2501 calories. More than a man should have in a day. It is incredibly easy to eat too many calories. Somewhat sadly I had dried fruit instead.
580 calories - 2431kj. A lot, but nowhere near as bad as you thought.
Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18% Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?
There have actually been a few subsamples showing SCons ahead of SLab. If you want a punt, you can get 3/1 with Lads on SCons most seats without SNP, pretty mean imo.
Although today's poll has Scottish Labour on 28% up from 24% at the election, mainly from the SNP who are down to 44%. The Scottish Tories are up from 14% to 21% but that is mainly at the expense of the LDs who are down to 2% from 7%, not Labour
Worth pointing out that even the YouGov subsample would - at most - switch two SNP seats back to Labour.
Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18% Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?
There have actually been a few subsamples showing SCons ahead of SLab. If you want a punt, you can get 3/1 with Lads on SCons most seats without SNP, pretty mean imo.
Although today's poll has Scottish Labour on 28% up from 24% at the election, mainly from the SNP who are down to 44%. The Scottish Tories are up from 14% to 21% but that is mainly at the expense of the LDs who are down to 2% from 7%, not Labour
Worth pointing out that even the YouGov subsample would - at most - switch two SNP seats back to Labour.
Yes, but that would still treble the number of Scottish Labour MPs
First real exit poll numbers from my sources on the greek election:
Syriza 32 ND 31.5 Nazis 7 PASOK 6 Communists 5.5 River 4.5 Independent Greeks 3 Peoples Union 3 Union of Centrists 3.
Looks like a long night.
How can there be an exit poll many hours before the close of polls? And that's too close it would make a world of difference between Syriza 32 and ND 31.5 vs ND 32 and Syriza 31.5 due to the top up bonus the winner gets.
Would produce something like
Syriza 134 ND 82 Nazis 18 PASOK 16 Communists 14 River 12 Independent Greeks 8 Peoples Union 8 Union of Centrists 8
It subsides well-off pensioners so why not? I wouldn't have a problem means-testing it though to the poorest families - but from what I can see Osborne is getting rid of the scheme completely so many poor children will lose out.
State does not subsidise well off pensioners. Pensioners pay in all their lives to get their pensions out. And once there they are then on a fixed income with the sands of time running out. A bus pass is hardly a massive subsidy. Take the average NHS pension at 7 grand. Plus the state pension, and all taxed. Where is the subsidy on that?
Every single penny collected by HM Government in National Insurance has been spent. In almost every case it was spent in its entirety in the year in which it was collected.
There are many arguments to justify the payment of a state pension but saying "they paid in all their lives" is simply a lie.
On the school meal thing I was initially very sceptical on the basis that one of the good things the Coalition was doing was attacking Universal benefits (such as my Child Benefit) so it made little sense to introduce another one. But the evidence of improved academic performance was quite compelling if somewhat small scale. As it has now been tested on a much larger scale I think it is legitimate to inquire if the benefits are still apparent.
On obesity one of the best ideas I heard was the daily mile. Each class took out about 15-20 minutes each day to run or walk a mile. This was staggered through the school so disruption was minimal. The consequence was a remarkable reduction in measured obesity in the school and, it was claimed, better concentration on the part of the children. Cost, zero.
Walking is supposed to be one of those activities which helps concentrations, hence the wisdom in breaking up the school or office day with a few short walks.
On topic, there must be some way to triangulate on this issue in a way that satisfies protocol but still remains true to Corbyn's values, for example by kneeling before the Queen and farting.
Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.
If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.
Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?
Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money
.....The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on
Quaint it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.
Osborne making another blunder. It should have not been in the manifesto if there was a chance of dropping it.
Let us hope that Ozzie continues to make such "blunders" and that laissez fair obesity deniers like yourself are thinned out.
Obesity is mainly due to a lack of burning calories. We eat less calories now than the past.
Good morning all. I treated myself to a Fitbit last Christmas - probably one of the most useful gadgets I've ever owned. It's horrifying how few calories we burn - I'm sure most people overestimate the effect that exercise has.
I'm losing weight, but only if I walk (at least) 10 miles and row 10k per day. That's on an intake of between 1.5k and 2k calories per day, which is not exactly sybaritic. I doubt I'd have been able to consistently achieve that level of activity when I was a working slob.
I was in Costas yesterday. They had a coffee and walnut cake to have with your coffee. My favourite as it happens. This cake had 2501 calories. More than a man should have in a day. It is incredibly easy to eat too many calories. Somewhat sadly I had dried fruit instead.
580 calories - 2431kj. A lot, but nowhere near as bad as you thought.
As a side issue and related to my previous post, it will be interesting to see how an 'ideal' form of driverless cars will change things. I'm not sure it'll be a direct replacement for the way we drive at the moment.
For instance, say I needed to get from here (outside Cambridge) to Wimbledon. Would I take a driverless car all the way to the Wimbledon, or would it take me from here to Cambridge (or St Neots) station, from where I could take the tube or another driverless car to my exact destination?
Road capacity might not be helped by driverless cars; parking capacity might well be (my car could drop me off at my destination, then drive a few miles to a big parking lot. Then, when I need it, it can drive back to puck me up.)
There's also a big question about whether it would be 'my' car, or whether there would be more of a leasing/hire system.
It'll change the way we do things massively, if it can be done.
By money's on gradual changes. Production cars are already getting increasingly complex driver aids, from parking assist and automatic parking to lane departure warnings and automatic braking. I think it's more likely that these technologies will be evolved quickly until the critical mass has been reached, and the wrinkles wrung out of the system.
There's also the data side of this as well, which few people consider
Driverless cars would be able to pack a lot more efficiently onto the existing road system - especially on motorways where I expect the tech to come in first.
And around town (when the software is up to it), traffic lights and other junctions could be made far more efficient as well. The cars could communicate to each other and each would know the other was always going to follow the rules, so merging turn-by-turn (for example) could be done at a reasonable speed.
Have to ban human drivers by that point of course.
On topic, there must be some way to triangulate on this issue in a way that satisfies protocol but still remains true to Corbyn's values, for example by kneeling before the Queen and farting.
It's been done before. From John Aubrey's Brief Lives:
This Earle of Oxford, making of his low obeisance to Queen Elizabeth, happened to let a Fart, at which he was so abashed and ashamed that he went to Travell, 7 yeares. On his returne the Queen welcomed him home, and sayd, My Lord, I had forgott the Fart. "Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford"
Dair I paid in every week for fifty years into what I was told would be my pension fund..that was no lie.... what the recipient did with the money... various governments... has no bearing at all on the basic principle..
As a side issue and related to my previous post, it will be interesting to see how an 'ideal' form of driverless cars will change things. I'm not sure it'll be a direct replacement for the way we drive at the moment.
For instance, say I needed to get from here (outside Cambridge) to Wimbledon. Would I take a driverless car all the way to the Wimbledon, or would it take me from here to Cambridge (or St Neots) station, from where I could take the tube or another driverless car to my exact destination?
Road capacity might not be helped by driverless cars; parking capacity might well be (my car could drop me off at my destination, then drive a few miles to a big parking lot. Then, when I need it, it can drive back to puck me up.)
There's also a big question about whether it would be 'my' car, or whether there would be more of a leasing/hire system.
It'll change the way we do things massively, if it can be done.
By money's on gradual changes. Production cars are already getting increasingly complex driver aids, from parking assist and automatic parking to lane departure warnings and automatic braking. I think it's more likely that these technologies will be evolved quickly until the critical mass has been reached, and the wrinkles wrung out of the system.
There's also the data side of this as well, which few people consider
One Labour MSP said: “If anyone says this is good news because we can outflank the SNP on the left, then they’re not thinking straight.
“The SNP doesn’t really present a left-wing politics, it just says to people ‘you’re compassionate and wonderful’ and people lap it up.
“There isn’t a majority out there for paying more tax and hiking up benefits. If there was, then the SNP would be doing those things.
“There’s a majority out there that wants to feel good about themselves and to get on in life and the SNP absolutely talks to them.
“The rhetoric is left wing but the politics are centre ground. The SNP is New Labour with nationalism added and there’s no way an Old Labour offer is going to counter it. I despair at anyone who thinks that’s going to happen.
“We’re completely screwed if we’re pinning our hopes on winning on an out of date agenda.”
Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18% Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?
There have actually been a few subsamples showing SCons ahead of SLab. If you want a punt, you can get 3/1 with Lads on SCons most seats without SNP, pretty mean imo.
Although today's poll has Scottish Labour on 28% up from 24% at the election, mainly from the SNP who are down to 44%. The Scottish Tories are up from 14% to 21% but that is mainly at the expense of the LDs who are down to 2% from 7%, not Labour
Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18% Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?
There have actually been a few subsamples showing SCons ahead of SLab. If you want a punt, you can get 3/1 with Lads on SCons most seats without SNP, pretty mean imo.
Although today's poll has Scottish Labour on 28% up from 24% at the election, mainly from the SNP who are down to 44%. The Scottish Tories are up from 14% to 21% but that is mainly at the expense of the LDs who are down to 2% from 7%, not Labour
The poll does not show that.
Well those are the figures whether you like them or not
Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18% Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?
There have actually been a few subsamples showing SCons ahead of SLab. If you want a punt, you can get 3/1 with Lads on SCons most seats without SNP, pretty mean imo.
Although today's poll has Scottish Labour on 28% up from 24% at the election, mainly from the SNP who are down to 44%. The Scottish Tories are up from 14% to 21% but that is mainly at the expense of the LDs who are down to 2% from 7%, not Labour
Worth pointing out that even the YouGov subsample would - at most - switch two SNP seats back to Labour.
But, it would switch 3 SNP Seats to the Conservatives!
Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.
If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.
Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?
Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money
.....The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on
Quaint it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.
Osborne making another blunder. It should have not been in the manifesto if there was a chance of dropping it.
Let us hope that Ozzie continues to make such "blunders" and that laissez fair obesity deniers like yourself are thinned out.
Obesity is mainly due to a lack of burning calories. We eat less calories now than the past.
Good morning all. I treated myself to a Fitbit last Christmas - probably one of the most useful gadgets I've ever owned. It's horrifying how few calories we burn - I'm sure most people overestimate the effect that exercise has.
I'm losing weight, but only if I walk (at least) 10 miles and row 10k per day. That's on an intake of between 1.5k and 2k calories per day, which is not exactly sybaritic. I doubt I'd have been able to consistently achieve that level of activity when I was a working slob.
I was in Costas yesterday. They had a coffee and walnut cake to have with your coffee. My favourite as it happens. This cake had 2501 calories. More than a man should have in a day. It is incredibly easy to eat too many calories. Somewhat sadly I had dried fruit instead.
580 calories - 2431kj. A lot, but nowhere near as bad as you thought.
Dair I paid in every week for fifty years into what I was told would be my pension fund..that was no lie.... what the recipient did with the money... various governments... has no bearing at all on the basic principle..
You were lied to and gullible.
Now you want others to subsidise your mistake.
The moral hazard was yours, like any con, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But an entire generation of destructive individuals decided to ignore reality and believe the completely unbelievable.
One Labour MSP said: “If anyone says this is good news because we can outflank the SNP on the left, then they’re not thinking straight.
“The SNP doesn’t really present a left-wing politics, it just says to people ‘you’re compassionate and wonderful’ and people lap it up.
“There isn’t a majority out there for paying more tax and hiking up benefits. If there was, then the SNP would be doing those things.
“There’s a majority out there that wants to feel good about themselves and to get on in life and the SNP absolutely talks to them.
“The rhetoric is left wing but the politics are centre ground. The SNP is New Labour with nationalism added and there’s no way an Old Labour offer is going to counter it. I despair at anyone who thinks that’s going to happen.
“We’re completely screwed if we’re pinning our hopes on winning on an out of date agenda.”
It's reassuring that the SLAB people seem to at least kept some grip on the realities of the situation. The worst of all worlds would be if they believed Corbyn was their saviour.
As a side issue and related to my previous post, it will be interesting to see how an 'ideal' form of driverless cars will change things. I'm not sure it'll be a direct replacement for the way we drive at the moment.
For instance, say I needed to get from here (outside Cambridge) to Wimbledon. Would I take a driverless car all the way to the Wimbledon, or would it take me from here to Cambridge (or St Neots) station, from where I could take the tube or another driverless car to my exact destination?
Road capacity might not be helped by driverless cars; parking capacity might well be (my car could drop me off at my destination, then drive a few miles to a big parking lot. Then, when I need it, it can drive back to puck me up.)
There's also a big question about whether it would be 'my' car, or whether there would be more of a leasing/hire system.
It'll change the way we do things massively, if it can be done.
By money's on gradual changes. Production cars are already getting increasingly complex driver aids, from parking assist and automatic parking to lane departure warnings and automatic braking. I think it's more likely that these technologies will be evolved quickly until the critical mass has been reached, and the wrinkles wrung out of the system.
There's also the data side of this as well, which few people consider
Security is going to be a big issue, and one that may be unsolvable. And as the news from Volkswagen yesterday shows, we cannot necessarily trust the big car manufacturers.
Dair I paid in every week for fifty years into what I was told would be my pension fund..that was no lie.... what the recipient did with the money... various governments... has no bearing at all on the basic principle..
You were lied to and gullible.
Now you want others to subsidise your mistake.
The moral hazard was yours, like any con, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But an entire generation of destructive individuals decided to ignore reality and believe the completely unbelievable.
I wondered before, but now I see, you're an ageist. Presumably you think the Boomers should be ejected from the airlock once they retire. All the more reason for Scotland to become independent, we'll have fewer people spewing bile on here.
Their leader did this which is commonsense in action
There has been talk, south of the Border, of new members – Corbynistas – getting together to remove as candidates MPs who are seen as New Labour. There can be no such purge in Scotland.
Dugdale has ensured that nobody who joined the party after early July will have a say in the selection of candidates for next year’s Holyrood election.
One Labour MSP said: “If anyone says this is good news because we can outflank the SNP on the left, then they’re not thinking straight.
“The SNP doesn’t really present a left-wing politics, it just says to people ‘you’re compassionate and wonderful’ and people lap it up.
“There isn’t a majority out there for paying more tax and hiking up benefits. If there was, then the SNP would be doing those things.
“There’s a majority out there that wants to feel good about themselves and to get on in life and the SNP absolutely talks to them.
“The rhetoric is left wing but the politics are centre ground. The SNP is New Labour with nationalism added and there’s no way an Old Labour offer is going to counter it. I despair at anyone who thinks that’s going to happen.
“We’re completely screwed if we’re pinning our hopes on winning on an out of date agenda.”
It's reassuring that the SLAB people seem to at least kept some grip on the realities of the situation. The worst of all worlds would be if they believed Corbyn was their saviour.
One Labour MSP said: “If anyone says this is good news because we can outflank the SNP on the left, then they’re not thinking straight.
“The SNP doesn’t really present a left-wing politics, it just says to people ‘you’re compassionate and wonderful’ and people lap it up.
“There isn’t a majority out there for paying more tax and hiking up benefits. If there was, then the SNP would be doing those things.
“There’s a majority out there that wants to feel good about themselves and to get on in life and the SNP absolutely talks to them.
“The rhetoric is left wing but the politics are centre ground. The SNP is New Labour with nationalism added and there’s no way an Old Labour offer is going to counter it. I despair at anyone who thinks that’s going to happen.
“We’re completely screwed if we’re pinning our hopes on winning on an out of date agenda.”
Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18% Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?
There have actually been a few subsamples showing SCons ahead of SLab. If you want a punt, you can get 3/1 with Lads on SCons most seats without SNP, pretty mean imo.
Although today's poll has Scottish Labour on 28% up from 24% at the election, mainly from the SNP who are down to 44%. The Scottish Tories are up from 14% to 21% but that is mainly at the expense of the LDs who are down to 2% from 7%, not Labour
The poll does not show that.
Well those are the figures whether you like them or not
Yes those are the figures but they do not show the outcome you claim, as you clearly do not understand polling. Polls are designed and calculated for an overall outcome, which is all they show. A single subsample on its own does not show anything. At best, they indicate potential changes when you look at multiple subsamples together.
As a side issue and related to my previous post, it will be interesting to see how an 'ideal' form of driverless cars will change things. I'm not sure it'll be a direct replacement for the way we drive at the moment.
For instance, say I needed to get from here (outside Cambridge) to Wimbledon. Would I take a driverless car all the way to the Wimbledon, or would it take me from here to Cambridge (or St Neots) station, from where I could take the tube or another driverless car to my exact destination?
Road capacity might not be helped by driverless cars; parking capacity might well be (my car could drop me off at my destination, then drive a few miles to a big parking lot. Then, when I need it, it can drive back to puck me up.)
There's also a big question about whether it would be 'my' car, or whether there would be more of a leasing/hire system.
It'll change the way we do things massively, if it can be done.
By money's on gradual changes. Production cars are already getting increasingly complex driver aids, from parking assist and automatic parking to lane departure warnings and automatic braking. I think it's more likely that these technologies will be evolved quickly until the critical mass has been reached, and the wrinkles wrung out of the system.
There's also the data side of this as well, which few people consider
Driverless cars would be able to pack a lot more efficiently onto the existing road system - especially on motorways where I expect the tech to come in first.
And around town (when the software is up to it), traffic lights and other junctions could be made far more efficient as well. The cars could communicate to each other and each would know the other was always going to follow the rules, so merging turn-by-turn (for example) could be done at a reasonable speed.
Have to ban human drivers by that point of course.
The problem is the interface with humans. Banning human drivers at that stage is fair enough, but you still need to work around the other humans who interface with the roads: from cyclists to people crossing the roads, people getting out of cars, and even children running into the roads.
And then you get animals on the road.
It's a devilishly difficult problem for them to solve, and pretty much AI-complete. That's why I'm hesitant to follow the hype.
It's reassuring that the SLAB people seem to at least kept some grip on the realities of the situation. The worst of all worlds would be if they believed Corbyn was their saviour.
Comments
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/maul-or-nothing-for-bojo/
Of, course there is that matter of "if we need" a new railway line. I have to say I am not convinced we do. So how do we decide whether we do or not? Well, the business case is probably the best method yet devised, but the one for HS2 looks as if it shows we don't need such a railway.
This is just classic fib dem attention seeking.
You still haven't told me where you got your Greek election bet on.
Actually it was a private bet between friends and which I look like losing.
And I'm not a fan of some of the universal benefits that pensioners get (or Whataboutery)
Asso Asso Yugoshi, me welsh speaking Japanese!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa_FM2AUUpc
If we had a reforming CoE these would have disappeared long ago, but we don't.
Snippets include:
7% of 2015 Labour voters now voting Tory, 2% of 2015 Tory voters now voting Labour.
19% of 2015 LDs now voting Labour, 16% Tory.
Corbyn has a big lead in London where Labour leads on 44% to the Tories 32% which is good news for Khan.
The Tories have a huge lead in the South where they lead on 49% to Labour's 21%.
In the Midlands and Wales the Tories also lead by 37% to 32%.
Labour leads in the North by 42% to the Tories 33%.
In Scotland the SNP have fallen back a little to 44% compared to the 50% they won at the election, Corbyn has increased Labour's total from 24% to 28% and the Tories are also up in Scotland on 21% compared to the 15% they won in May
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/i41vkd4xdd/SundayTimesResults_150918_Website.pdf
Mind you none of this is new. One of my heroes, Godfrey Hardy, got his scholarship to Winchester because his parents were both school teachers and knew the system (Hardy was born in 1877).
I know the photographer who took the Cameron/ Osborne photo and the only reason it was withdrawn after its initial publication was for breach of copywrite.
You can see umpteen photos in pubs in Oxford of similar clubs, all posed the same way. It's a tradition dating back to the early days of photography. I can point you to a famous photo of captured confederate prisoners after Gettysburg which is posed in exactly the same way.
Despite all the furore over 'smashed restaurants' you only find one example quoted over and over in the press of an exploit by 'alleged' Bullingdon members.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/i41vkd4xdd/SundayTimesResults_150918_Website.pdf
There is already a big split between the liberal economic Lib Dems and the interventionist, centralising, social democrat Lib Dems.
Liberal policies about freedom, free markets and localism are not compatible with social democrat thinking.
PS: in pedant mode it is copyright
I thought the business case showed we needed a new railway, even if the BCR was lowered a couple of years ago.
Many of the railways (and even roads) that we as a society rely on to this day never really showed a direct profit for the people who built them - Brunel himself was someone whose brilliant grandiose ambition ruined others. Yet their loss all those years ago has been a massive benefit to society.
We are sometimes all too lacking in ambition in this country. Take the motorways: the M25 should, with hindsight, have been built with more lanes, and the M5 was expanded to three lanes from two shortly after it was built. We are replicating these faults with other infrastructure. The cost of this shortsightedness has been massive.
A thought occurs: if compulsory school dinners are such a good idea for infant schools, what makes them a bad idea for children aged 8 to 18?
It's a fecking subsample.
Of course we will need to see some more polls but it does seem that while Corbyn has increased Labour's total by just 0.6% across the UK with yougov in Scotland he has increased it by 4%, coupled with Labour's biggest lead being in London it confirms what I suspected that Scotland and London would be where Corbyn made his biggest gains
So one is left with the choice between, "Feck the numbers. Let us just go for it and it will be our grandchildren paying if it doesn't work out, so who cares", and, "There is no credible financial case for the project so bin it".
There's a reason why reading too much into such small subsamples is invariably bolllocks?
And because adults are expected to take responsibility for themselves :-)
There's a value in there for bettors, though one on it's own is meaningless.
I also think you're being a little harsh on the business case and need. BCRs are always difficult to ascertain, but even the revised figures are positive.
Rail traffic levels have increased over the last few years, as predicted (if anything, I think they've exceeded projections. It'll be interesting to see if the decrease in petrol prices at the pumps will have any affect on passenger numbers over the current period.
It also needs to be remembered that piecemeal changes to the rail network are massively costly, as we are seeing with the current problematic electrification schemes, and the disastrous WCML upgrade scheme of a decade ago.
Ok, I'll try this slowly. At present infant school children, i.e. those aged 7 or under, all get free school dinners - they are not allowed to bring in packed lunches. Until the current scheme was introduced those from more modest backgrounds were entitled to free school dinners and the rest, depending on the facilities available in the school, either paid or brought their own lunch.
Your claim was that all infant school children would be denied free school meals under new plans from Osborne. I asked for a source . You gave me a source that said the scheme to provide all infant school pupils with free meals would be abolished but not that such meals would be removed from pupils from more modest backgrounds.
On whether Osborne's scheme, if it actually exists, if a good or bad idea, I make no comment. Your claim that it is his intention to remove free school meals from all pupils, i.e. regardless of parental means, does not stand - at least not on the evidence you have presented.
There's a reason why reading too much into such small subsamples is invariably bolllocks?
Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18%
Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?
'Am I reading the ComRes Scottish Subsample correctly?
Conservatives 18%
Labour 16 %
Yes its a very small subsample and well within the MoE, But is the first pole to show that that I can remember in years if not decades! perhaps other PBs do remember other pols that showed this? Apart form the novelty factor it does say something that they are now close enough for this to be possible.
Anybody seen any odds being quoted for conservatives to be second largest party in Holroyd after next Mays election?'
Comres also has the Tories ahead in London, the North and Wales, Labour have never been behind in Wales at a general election since 1918, yougov has Labour ahead in the North and London, the Tories ahead in the Midlands and South and the SNP ahead in Scotland, but by a smaller margin. Yougov's subsamples seem far more realistic to me
http://tinyurl.com/q5vjb58
Which is why the Univerity of Michigan have opened a 'virtual city' in which automated cars can be tested.
http://fortune.com/2015/07/20/mcity-michigan-driverless-cars/
Driverless cars may eventually cause problems for other transport systems. Although taxi drivers are probably the most nervous ...
(BTW, I'd love usable, safe and economic driverless cars. The idea of being driven to the start of a walk, do the walk, and have the car pick me up at the end if brilliant. Although I do have such a system at the moment, it requires flowers and meals out as payment!)
Your claim was that all infant school children would be denied free school meals under new plans from Osborne. I asked for a source . You gave me a source that said the scheme to provide all infant school pupils with free meals would be abolished but not that such meals would be removed from pupils from more modest backgrounds.
On whether Osborne's scheme, if it actually exists, if a good or bad idea, I make no comment. Your claim that it is his intention to remove free school meals from all pupils, i.e. regardless of parental means, does not stand - at least not on the evidence you have presented.
HerstLlama,
Thanks for pursuing that one. It sounded, like a groundless scare story, which is what you have shown it to be.
Definitely worth reading this article in full.
For instance, say I needed to get from here (outside Cambridge) to Wimbledon. Would I take a driverless car all the way to the Wimbledon, or would it take me from here to Cambridge (or St Neots) station, from where I could take the tube or another driverless car to my exact destination?
Road capacity might not be helped by driverless cars; parking capacity might well be (my car could drop me off at my destination, then drive a few miles to a big parking lot. Then, when I need it, it can drive back to puck me up.)
There's also a big question about whether it would be 'my' car, or whether there would be more of a leasing/hire system.
It'll change the way we do things massively, if it can be done.
By money's on gradual changes. Production cars are already getting increasingly complex driver aids, from parking assist and automatic parking to lane departure warnings and automatic braking. I think it's more likely that these technologies will be evolved quickly until the critical mass has been reached, and the wrinkles wrung out of the system.
There's also the data side of this as well, which few people consider
http://www.costa.co.uk/menu/food/cakes/coffee-and-walnut-mini-cake/
Syriza 134
ND 82
Nazis 18
PASOK 16
Communists 14
River 12
Independent Greeks 8
Peoples Union 8
Union of Centrists 8
There are many arguments to justify the payment of a state pension but saying "they paid in all their lives" is simply a lie.
Driverless cars would be able to pack a lot more efficiently onto the existing road system - especially on motorways where I expect the tech to come in first.
And around town (when the software is up to it), traffic lights and other junctions could be made far more efficient as well. The cars could communicate to each other and each would know the other was always going to follow the rules, so merging turn-by-turn (for example) could be done at a reasonable speed.
Have to ban human drivers by that point of course.
This Earle of Oxford, making of his low obeisance to Queen Elizabeth, happened to let a Fart, at which he was so abashed and ashamed that he went to Travell, 7 yeares. On his returne the Queen welcomed him home, and sayd, My Lord, I had forgott the Fart.
"Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford"
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk
Dumfries & Galloway
Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine
LOL, and yes with all the limitations of projections of Uniform national swing, and the new boundaries anyway. but fun to note anyway.
Many thanks for that.
Now you want others to subsidise your mistake.
The moral hazard was yours, like any con, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But an entire generation of destructive individuals decided to ignore reality and believe the completely unbelievable.
It's reassuring that the SLAB people seem to at least kept some grip on the realities of the situation. The worst of all worlds would be if they believed Corbyn was their saviour.
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/
Security is going to be a big issue, and one that may be unsolvable. And as the news from Volkswagen yesterday shows, we cannot necessarily trust the big car manufacturers.
It's 100% true.
@nicholaswatt: I was not personally aware of John McDonnell playing role in NI peace process Charlie Falconer tells @afneil
All going well then...
And then you get animals on the road.
It's a devilishly difficult problem for them to solve, and pretty much AI-complete. That's why I'm hesitant to follow the hype.
Just look at HYUFD