Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Oldham West & Royton set to be Corbyn’s first big electoral

2

Comments

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    In case anyone missed it: Just reading last nights thread. Had to wipe my eyes after watching this. And I never even blinked when Bambi's mum was shot.
    SeanT said:

    I guarantee, this is five minutes of your life you will be quite happy you never got back.

    Watch this video. Just astonishing.

    https://www.facebook.com/robert.eshbach/videos/1051135241572083/

  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    The Spectator very harsh on Osborne re tax credits here

    https://twitter.com/spectator/status/657085690514153472
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited October 2015
    isam said:

    Maybe Ukip could be the recipient of Tory votes in Oldham now there is no chance of that course of action leading to an add Miliband govt... For some reason I can't get excited about the chance of a win in threat I did in heywood and Middleton (600 votes... 14/1... Ugh)

    UKIP and the Tories both need to come out campaigning hard in this seat. Both need to let the electorate know that they are insecond place and are the only party to stop Labour. I imagine that depending on Labour's choice of candidate this could be a nasty by-election, with the quotes from Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne all written large on posters.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Anyway, there's a cricket match quite literally on my doorstep, off to watch the afternoon session and hopefully a couple more wickets.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    They are a scandal to democracy, typical Westminster control freaks.
    Care to explain how it is a "scandal to democracy"?

    The opposition to EVEL appears to be nothing more than "oh those Tories are up to no good" (similar to equalising the size of constituencies). Any politically neutral person - English or Scot - who looks at the proposals (EVEL, boundaries) would agree that they are not only fair but necessary.
    Mr Cornish, I learned a while back that hoping for rational, unbiased debate with Scots Nats is nigh on impossible. Try talking to them about prescriptions, tuition fees, the Barnett Formula or the West Lothian issue without being subjected to abuse.
    I agree - malc is just here following orders to stir up nonsense.
    Whilst @malcolmg is the Chief Turnip of the Black Pudding Race on PB he is .... and I have to steady myself in writing this ... entirely correct on this issue.

    Westminster is the UK parliament and all MP's should be treated equally. If Conservatives want EVEL then let them set up an English parliament and complete a federal structure for the UK.

    On a related note, for federation to really work, I think it should devolve London too. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and London. I don't want England carved up into regions, but seperating London would seem to make sense.
    Probably so.

    Much would depend on the nature of further devolved powers to London and those of elected Mayors.

    The site of the English parliament would need to be settled. I favour the Grand Duchy of Rutland with a slimmed down parliament in Oakham Castle that clearly relates to the Rutland motto :

    Multum in Parvo - Much in Little .... :smile:

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531

    Charles said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Go knock yourself out

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

    Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.

    Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
    I'm not reading through 220+ pages and you don't expect me to.

    I am however amused by your notion that a skilled marksman is more expensive than maintaining a pack of hounds and hunting horses and costumes.

    What your really mean is that you hate (or perhaps I should say despise) the notion of equality implicit in representative democracy, and long for a return to the days when the well-to-do not only could but were expected to abuse the poor. With, of course, nowadays the extra spice of racism all too often.

    Few on here who are less likely to have that mindset than Charles.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Go knock yourself out

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

    Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.

    Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
    I'm not reading through 220+ pages and you don't expect me to.

    I am however amused by your notion that a skilled marksman is more expensive than maintaining a pack of hounds and hunting horses and costumes.

    What your really mean is that you hate (or perhaps I should say despise) the notion of equality implicit in representative democracy, and long for a return to the days when the well-to-do not only could but were expected to abuse the poor. With, of course, nowadays the extra spice of racism all too often.

    Um. No. I don't.

  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    Maybe Ukip could be the recipient of Tory votes in Oldham now there is no chance of that course of action leading to an add Miliband govt... For some reason I can't get excited about the chance of a win in threat I did in heywood and Middleton (600 votes... 14/1... Ugh)

    UKIP and the Tories both need to come out campaigning hard in this seat. Both need to let the electorate know that they are insecond place and are the only party to stop Labour. I imagine that depending on Labour's choice of candidate this could be a nasty by-election, with the quotes from Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne all written large on posters.
    Can labour lose a seat where 25% of voters are Muslim?

    Could Ukip win such a seat?

    I don't think so myself

    Heywood and Middleton is 4%

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    Maybe Ukip could be the recipient of Tory votes in Oldham now there is no chance of that course of action leading to an add Miliband govt... For some reason I can't get excited about the chance of a win in threat I did in heywood and Middleton (600 votes... 14/1... Ugh)

    UKIP and the Tories both need to come out campaigning hard in this seat. Both need to let the electorate know that they are insecond place and are the only party to stop Labour. I imagine that depending on Labour's choice of candidate this could be a nasty by-election, with the quotes from Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne all written large on posters.
    Can labour lose a seat where 25% of voters are Muslim?

    Could Ukip win such a seat?

    I don't think so myself

    Heywood and Middleton is 4%

    Are Respect going to stand?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    So, EVEL half solves the West Lothian question, in that the English (& sometimes Welsh) stage cannot pass without English (/W majority approval).

    Scottish votes still can veto though, MalcolmG takes the extreme case of 533/573 E/W MPs all in favour and 59 Scots all against, where of course the Scots are outgunned, but a small English majority on a devolved issue can still be overturned by Scottish MPs.

    I wonder how many new West Lothian questions English devolution will bring. Will the MP for Denton & Reddish MP be able to vote on health matters relating to Denton, Norfolk more than he can for Denton, Gtr Manchester? Does/Will a London MP already have slightly more say over what goes on in Malden, Essex than Malden, Kingston upon Thames?

    The only way I can see of solving the question is to provide equal access to levels of devolution for the voters of all parts of the UK (along with a mechanism of self-identification). If that devolution is not taken up, that is the voters' choice. In the south of England, where the desire for extra layers of government is weakest, a choice between bureaucracy or inequality of representation might be distinctly unappealing, so I guess the question is, do we really want to solve the West Lothian question for all places in all cases?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037

    Charles said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Go knock yourself out

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

    Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.

    Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
    I'm not reading through 220+ pages and you don't expect me to.

    I am however amused by your notion that a skilled marksman is more expensive than maintaining a pack of hounds and hunting horses and costumes.

    What your really mean is that you hate (or perhaps I should say despise) the notion of equality implicit in representative democracy, and long for a return to the days when the well-to-do not only could but were expected to abuse the poor. With, of course, nowadays the extra spice of racism all too often.

    Foxhunting is a popular and profitable activity in the countryside.

    You seem to be rather obsessed by racism.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    Maybe Ukip could be the recipient of Tory votes in Oldham now there is no chance of that course of action leading to an add Miliband govt... For some reason I can't get excited about the chance of a win in threat I did in heywood and Middleton (600 votes... 14/1... Ugh)

    UKIP and the Tories both need to come out campaigning hard in this seat. Both need to let the electorate know that they are insecond place and are the only party to stop Labour. I imagine that depending on Labour's choice of candidate this could be a nasty by-election, with the quotes from Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne all written large on posters.
    Can labour lose a seat where 25% of voters are Muslim?

    Could Ukip win such a seat?

    I don't think so myself

    Heywood and Middleton is 4%

    Are Respect going to stand?
    I don't know but yes that could be a factor I guess

    Galloway otherwise engaged though with London matters!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Pro_Rata said:

    The only way I can see of solving the question is to provide equal access to levels of devolution for the voters of all parts of the UK

    Quite right. If we abolished the devolved assemblies and returned to a single UK Parliament the problem would be solved completely...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    Roger said:

    CR

    "It would stop a future Labour Minority government, with SNP support, from forcing measures onto England where they did not command a majority of English MPs."

    I would have thought under those circumstances or even with a Labour goverment dependant on Scottish Labour MP's they would just overturn it. Sounds like a non starter..

    They could repeal it as a UK Act, as they could for fixed term parliaments, balanced budgets or for the EU referendum lock. But it would cause a mighty stink, and the Lords could drag it out as I doubt they'd be brave enough to commit to it in the manifesto.
  • Anorak said:

    In case anyone missed it: Just reading last nights thread. Had to wipe my eyes after watching this. And I never even blinked when Bambi's mum was shot.

    SeanT said:

    I guarantee, this is five minutes of your life you will be quite happy you never got back.

    Watch this video. Just astonishing.

    https://www.facebook.com/robert.eshbach/videos/1051135241572083/

    Had much the same effect on me too.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    Maybe Ukip could be the recipient of Tory votes in Oldham now there is no chance of that course of action leading to an add Miliband govt... For some reason I can't get excited about the chance of a win in threat I did in heywood and Middleton (600 votes... 14/1... Ugh)

    UKIP and the Tories both need to come out campaigning hard in this seat. Both need to let the electorate know that they are insecond place and are the only party to stop Labour. I imagine that depending on Labour's choice of candidate this could be a nasty by-election, with the quotes from Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne all written large on posters.
    Can labour lose a seat where 25% of voters are Muslim?

    Could Ukip win such a seat?

    I don't think so myself

    Heywood and Middleton is 4%

    Are Respect going to stand?
    I don't know but yes that could be a factor I guess

    Galloway otherwise engaged though with London matters!
    I'm expecting that they won't - they're presumably supportive of Project Corbyn. Like you, I don't see UKIP winning this one in normal circumstances. They can reasonably hope for a very respectable second and they should get that.

    Labour are probably a very good price at 1/7 (as they were at 1/6). But given Jeremy Corbyn's proven track record of selecting "interesting" men to fill key roles, I don't fancy betting at a short odds-on price on this.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Is it a chance to sneak in one of the hereditary losers, like Will Straw?

    Is it a AWS, so Jack Dromey's son could stand?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Charles said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Go knock yourself out

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

    Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.

    Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
    I'm not reading through 220+ pages and you don't expect me to.

    I am however amused by your notion that a skilled marksman is more expensive than maintaining a pack of hounds and hunting horses and costumes.

    What your really mean is that you hate (or perhaps I should say despise) the notion of equality implicit in representative democracy, and long for a return to the days when the well-to-do not only could but were expected to abuse the poor. With, of course, nowadays the extra spice of racism all too often.

    Foxhunting is a popular and profitable activity in the countryside.
    Well, quite. Foxhunting is self-funding and distributes money through the local economy. Marksmen are a cost to either the taxpayer or the farmer.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited October 2015
    Charles said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Charles said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Go knock yourself out

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

    Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.

    Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
    A few years ago there was a series of interviews in The FT magazine with people who had unusual jobs, one of them was with a man who shot foxes. He had plenty of work.

    Absolutely - I'd assume he's one of the "skilled marksman". But there aren't many who can do what he can do with the degree of accuracy that is needed
    6.33 - 6.39 points toward Deer stalking being the best method of population control. Deer are overabundant in Devon/Somerset as the report indicates. It seems obviously the best method of control to me for Deer as it does not induce chase stress :)
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited October 2015
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    Maybe Ukip could be the recipient of Tory votes in Oldham now there is no chance of that course of action leading to an add Miliband govt... For some reason I can't get excited about the chance of a win in threat I did in heywood and Middleton (600 votes... 14/1... Ugh)

    UKIP and the Tories both need to come out campaigning hard in this seat. Both need to let the electorate know that they are insecond place and are the only party to stop Labour. I imagine that depending on Labour's choice of candidate this could be a nasty by-election, with the quotes from Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne all written large on posters.
    Can labour lose a seat where 25% of voters are Muslim?

    Could Ukip win such a seat?

    I don't think so myself

    Heywood and Middleton is 4%

    Are Respect going to stand?
    I don't know but yes that could be a factor I guess

    Galloway otherwise engaged though with London matters!
    I'm expecting that they won't - they're presumably supportive of Project Corbyn. Like you, I don't see UKIP winning this one in normal circumstances. They can reasonably hope for a very respectable second and they should get that.

    Labour are probably a very good price at 1/7 (as they were at 1/6). But given Jeremy Corbyn's proven track record of selecting "interesting" men to fill key roles, I don't fancy betting at a short odds-on price on this.
    Lutfur Rahman?

    Maybe the 2nd place betting will be a better heat
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Pulpstar, deer are too numerous, and delicious. The answer is clear.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    Scott_P said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    The only way I can see of solving the question is to provide equal access to levels of devolution for the voters of all parts of the UK

    Quite right. If we abolished the devolved assemblies and returned to a single UK Parliament the problem would be solved completely...
    Does your masterplan require the abolition of the separate legal systems, or just going back to the pre-1990s situation?

    And would abolishing devolution kill nationalism stone dead? ;)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    @isam - that article captures very neatly the problem with George Osborne.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Pro_Rata said:

    And would abolishing devolution kill nationalism stone dead? ;)

    :)

    I suspect that devolution might, in the long run, turn out to kill Nationalism...

    @kdugdalemsp: A tad surprised the FM wasn't asked about the NHS on the wireless this morning - not like it's news or anything... https://t.co/THSqHxPk7y

    @RuthDavidsonMSP: 'Judge us on our record'
    'OK. You've cut NHS spending & it's hurting services.'
    'Shup'
    *constitutional distraction* https://t.co/AFccL4UZVk

    @kevverage: Our fully devolved NHS folks - in safe hands under the SNP?

    > https://t.co/mGzcm9fL2s https://t.co/d0qfkVDJDK
  • What was a 75 year old doing re-standing as the MP at the GE?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    TCP...MONEY..
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Charles said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Go knock yourself out

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

    Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.

    Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
    A few years ago there was a series of interviews in The FT magazine with people who had unusual jobs, one of them was with a man who shot foxes. He had plenty of work.

    Absolutely - I'd assume he's one of the "skilled marksman". But there aren't many who can do what he can do with the degree of accuracy that is needed
    6.33 - 6.39 points toward Deer stalking being the best method of population control. Deer are overabundant in Devon/Somerset as the report indicates. It seems obviously the best method of control to me for Deer as it does not induce chase stress :)
    For deer, stalking is obviously the best. I was talking about foxes.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I believe Labour are now using the ATS system instead. Or perhaps under Milne they'll be ASS.
    Scott_P said:

    Is it a chance to sneak in one of the hereditary losers, like Will Straw?

    Is it a AWS, so Jack Dromey's son could stand?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Tim Farron ‏@timfarron 29m29 minutes ago

    @ChrisMasonBBC @TheSun It's my pen name.

    Heh
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34600904

    Retail sales well ahead of forecast.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    OT several papers are running with Carney of the BoE saying we should REMAIN when in actual fact he says nothing of the sort
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722

    Mr. Pulpstar, deer are too numerous, and delicious. The answer is clear.

    I’ll definitely agree with that! Don’t see why we don’t have muntjac (a local pest) on loavl menus more often.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    Tim Farron ‏@timfarron 29m29 minutes ago

    @ChrisMasonBBC @TheSun It's my pen name.

    Heh
    did he choose that photo as well?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    What was a 75 year old doing re-standing as the MP at the GE?

    Why shouldn't he (unless he already had a terminal condition)? Age should be no bar; ability, capacity and potential contribution should be the only considerations.

    I really dislike the idea that only the middle-aged should be allowed to be MPs. While I wouldn't want too many elderly or youthful Members, a decent dusting of the right sort helps.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited October 2015
    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    They didn't look at Cameron Leave?
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    Carney's comments were pretty non-descript in fact, largely a predictable recycling of 'conventional wisdom' on this topic.

    The suggestion that the EU has made the UK more open and dynamic, which some papers are running with, is heavily caveated and no real causal connection is shown.

    There is a suggestion that the 'UK has successfully harnessed the benefits of openness afforded by its EU membership' but that is pretty weak spin really - what is the counterfactual? Would the UK have been less 'open' outside the EU (especially in the multi-dimensional sense Carney was talking about)? I doubt it.

    I'm afraid if Europhiles want to use this stuff for more scaremongering they won't get much purchase with it. Better stick with the rubbish the CBI is putting out.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    On-topic, my knowledge of Oldham West & Royton is limited but not zero, based on the A663 being a handy shortcut to visit many of my family and a short teacher training placement my wife had in a WWC area of the constituency.

    I agree with the consensus that the demographics will provide a buffer for Labour, but I would expect a chunky Labour to UKIP swing in the 7-12% range by the simple laws of by-election politics.

    I would expect immigration to feature heavily in the campaign, but I think Corbyn's views on immigration are already priced in somewhat for such seats, being merely what UKIP minded voters already believed that Labour thought.

    There may be a small anti-establishment swing from Labour to UKIP, despite Corbyn, as I guess a lot of that vote was cornered in Meacher's personal vote. That might not be replicated in Labour-UKIP battles elsewhere. I don't necessarily see a Corbyn fellow-traveller being that harmful unless the opposition can corner a specific bizarre foreign policy view far better than has thus far been managed for Corbyn, or in extremis is so way out that it draws in a heavyweight iLab candidate. (One or more iLab candidate is a distinct possibility, a credible and well-known one that makes a large impact at the polls is unlikely at this stage).

    And finally, any appeal UKIPs anti-EU position has is going to be sucked up by the referendum and pretty irrelevant for the next year or two.

  • You make my point nicely Malcolm.

    Your dichotomy is this: if the English were to vote on Scots independence you'd be gone in an instant, unfortunately for us too many of your countrymen realised they were better off suckling on our teats.

    I have very little interest in your teats, but perhaps you could provide some evidence for the massive English support for Scottish independence?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited October 2015
    A few clouds starting to appear in Dubai. This pitch looks like it might be more amenable to turning than the last pitch in Abu Dhabi, certainly as the match progresses.
    My typical luck that I hear the cheer for the third wicket as I'm climbing the stairs to get into the stadium!
    Annoyingly no radio commentary inside the ground and no big screen replays.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    They didn't look at Cameron Leave?
    hmmm seems not
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Michael Meacher's sad death leaves an important by-election.The fact that Michael's politics were very close to Jeremy Corbyn's for decades should mean the good residents of Oldham will not be deceived by Tory,LibDem and ukip shock tactics and are likely to be quite insulated against claims wearing a vest has somehow become a criminal offence.In fact,it is the divine right of every Englishman to wear his socks with shorts and sandals.
    For many with young legs who have just joined the Labour party,this will be their first ever election campaign.The average age of a Labour party member is now 46,with a surge in under 24s which should play both well short and long term.Like Michael Meacher and many other democrats,they might just catch the election bug.
    Tories may just creep into 2nd place and worth a look in any 2nd place market
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    Pro_Rata said:

    So, EVEL half solves the West Lothian question, in that the English (& sometimes Welsh) stage cannot pass without English (/W majority approval).

    Scottish votes still can veto though, MalcolmG takes the extreme case of 533/573 E/W MPs all in favour and 59 Scots all against, where of course the Scots are outgunned, but a small English majority on a devolved issue can still be overturned by Scottish MPs.

    I wonder how many new West Lothian questions English devolution will bring. Will the MP for Denton & Reddish MP be able to vote on health matters relating to Denton, Norfolk more than he can for Denton, Gtr Manchester? Does/Will a London MP already have slightly more say over what goes on in Malden, Essex than Malden, Kingston upon Thames?

    The only way I can see of solving the question is to provide equal access to levels of devolution for the voters of all parts of the UK (along with a mechanism of self-identification). If that devolution is not taken up, that is the voters' choice. In the south of England, where the desire for extra layers of government is weakest, a choice between bureaucracy or inequality of representation might be distinctly unappealing, so I guess the question is, do we really want to solve the West Lothian question for all places in all cases?

    I agree , and whilst possible I believe it has only happened twice , where Scottish Labour votes overturned an English majority. If it was as now with so many SNP MP's they would only vote on "English" laws if they really affected Scotland. Therefore as it is just now it is virtually impossible for Scottish MP's to overturn an English Law vote.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676


    You make my point nicely Malcolm.

    Your dichotomy is this: if the English were to vote on Scots independence you'd be gone in an instant, unfortunately for us too many of your countrymen realised they were better off suckling on our teats.

    I have very little interest in your teats, but perhaps you could provide some evidence for the massive English support for Scottish independence?
    I think he meant he was a Teat
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    Scott_P said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    And would abolishing devolution kill nationalism stone dead? ;)

    :)

    I suspect that devolution might, in the long run, turn out to kill Nationalism...

    @kdugdalemsp: A tad surprised the FM wasn't asked about the NHS on the wireless this morning - not like it's news or anything... https://t.co/THSqHxPk7y

    @RuthDavidsonMSP: 'Judge us on our record'
    'OK. You've cut NHS spending & it's hurting services.'
    'Shup'
    *constitutional distraction* https://t.co/AFccL4UZVk

    @kevverage: Our fully devolved NHS folks - in safe hands under the SNP?

    > https://t.co/mGzcm9fL2s https://t.co/d0qfkVDJDK
    LOL, bet Scott did not listen to GMS and hear Kaye and BBC gobsmacked that every caller thought NHS was great and SNP doing a grand job. Prefers made up mince from turnips on twatterland
  • The target for Labour must be a 20% + margin.

    The target for the Tories: improve their share.

    The target for the Lib Dems: win 10%+ to show a "fight back".

    UKIP's target: to run Labour anything that could be descirbed as "close" for the seat.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Volcanopete..They could put the vest and a red rosette on a donkey and the other donkeys would still vote for it and a continuation of the cesspit that is their constituency
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    Sandpit said:

    A few clouds starting to appear in Dubai. This pitch looks like it might be more amenable to turning than the last pitch in Abu Dhabi, certainly as the match progresses.
    My typical luck that I hear the cheer for the third wicket as I'm climbing the stairs to get into the stadium!
    Annoyingly no radio commentary inside the ground and no big screen replays.

    Surely there’s lirttle or no chance of rain.I’ve seen heavy rain in Dubai, but in was in early March.
  • DearPBDearPB Posts: 439

    The target for Labour must be a 20% + margin.

    The target for the Tories: improve their share.

    The target for the Lib Dems: win 10%+ to show a "fight back".

    UKIP's target: to run Labour anything that could be descirbed as "close" for the seat.

    A UKIP win is the target for the Tories; a win in the North would see the UKIP strategy (with their limited resources) shift definitively to competing with Labour for the white working class vote (the "old thickos) who are most likely to vote to leave the EU).

    And it would further accelerate the disintegration of the Labour Party.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Rod's "Swingback" model kicking off nice and early for this Parliament! :D
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    Interesting that Cameron's intervention is not decisive in that poll, though. Even with his recommendation Remain only leads by 4%.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited October 2015

    Sandpit said:

    A few clouds starting to appear in Dubai. This pitch looks like it might be more amenable to turning than the last pitch in Abu Dhabi, certainly as the match progresses.
    My typical luck that I hear the cheer for the third wicket as I'm climbing the stairs to get into the stadium!
    Annoyingly no radio commentary inside the ground and no big screen replays.

    Surely there’s lirttle or no chance of rain.I’ve seen heavy rain in Dubai, but in was in early March.
    No chance of rain for the next few days, it's 35 degrees with the occasional fluffy cumulus in the sky right now.

    We get rain here as often as snow in the UK - with just as much disruption when it happens. Usually about 10 days spread over December until February, but occasionally as late as early May. About twice a year we get a couple of inches in one go, that brings the place to a standstill for the day!
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    For any PBers who don't follow this twitter account, it has some great invites

    What are your thoughts on teacher recruitment and retention? Tell @CommonsEd https://t.co/J7o9Dfzl3d
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    When do we think this by-election will take place?
  • I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Royale, not sure that's as interesting as it might be, given Cameron being for In has got to be priced in by most people.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    TKA We cannot legislate to stop people being stupid..Just look at the man the Labour Party voted in as leader
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    Interesting that Cameron's intervention is not decisive in that poll, though. Even with his recommendation Remain only leads by 4%.
    Do you think that's because people assume he will back Remain when asked the first question?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722

    Volcanopete..They could put the vest and a red rosette on a donkey and the other donkeys would still vote for it and a continuation of the cesspit that is their constituency

    Couple of good cricket clubs in, or very close to, the constituency.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    'Piss away' - spend their own carefully saved money.
  • TKA We cannot legislate to stop people being stupid..Just look at the man the Labour Party voted in as leader

    I agree but why should we be boosting their pension fund through tax relief ?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    Interesting that Cameron's intervention is not decisive in that poll, though. Even with his recommendation Remain only leads by 4%.
    Moving 50/50 to 52/48 (and presumably would also work the other way) seems pretty decisive to me!
  • watford30 said:

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    'Piss away' - spend their own carefully saved money.
    But it's been boosted by tax relief...that's why. Why should an employer be forced to pay in to a piss-away fund?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    OKC Agreed ..but that does not detract from the fact that the place is a decrepit mess that has not reelly changed in a beneficial way during Meachers reign..
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    Because if they choose to withdraw more than a certain portion of their saved capital in a single year they pay tax on it.

    And they should be allowed to do whatever they like with their owned money once they have paid tax.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    watford30 said:

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    'Piss away' - spend their own carefully saved money.
    But it's been boosted by tax relief...that's why. Why should an employer be forced to pay in to a piss-away fund?
    What's the difference between the employer paying it into the fund of someone who retires at 55 or 65?
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492


    You make my point nicely Malcolm.

    Your dichotomy is this: if the English were to vote on Scots independence you'd be gone in an instant, unfortunately for us too many of your countrymen realised they were better off suckling on our teats.

    I have very little interest in your teats, but perhaps you could provide some evidence for the massive English support for Scottish independence?
    I live in England

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    TKA Would that not also apply to the Doctors in the NHS who seem to be moving to early retirement in great numbers... and taking their pensions to piss away too..
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    Interesting that Cameron's intervention is not decisive in that poll, though. Even with his recommendation Remain only leads by 4%.
    Moving 50/50 to 52/48 (and presumably would also work the other way) seems pretty decisive to me!
    A 2% swing is MoE stuff. It would need to be 5%+ to be considered decisive.
  • Charles said:

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    Because if they choose to withdraw more than a certain portion of their saved capital in a single year they pay tax on it.

    And they should be allowed to do whatever they like with their owned money once they have paid tax.
    But why should the state enhance the pension fund - that would be absolutely right if the fund is to provide for retirement but I cannot understand why tax relief should be given for purchasing a sports car at 55
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited October 2015

    Charles said:

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    Because if they choose to withdraw more than a certain portion of their saved capital in a single year they pay tax on it.

    And they should be allowed to do whatever they like with their owned money once they have paid tax.
    But why should the state enhance the pension fund - that would be absolutely right if the fund is to provide for retirement but I cannot understand why tax relief should be given for purchasing a sports car at 55
    But it's OK to buy a sports car at 65?

    (Tax Relief - Allowing someone to keep a bit more of their own money).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037

    Mr. Royale, not sure that's as interesting as it might be, given Cameron being for In has got to be priced in by most people.

    Except most people don't follow politics anywhere near as closely as us and may take Cameron at his word that he hasn't decided yet and will only do so once the outcome of his renegotiation is clear.

    What I think may be decisive is how clearly and thoroughly the MSM unpick the actual merits of the deal.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    TKA What's your issue with Workie :D ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhOp8BJa2hk
  • watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    Because if they choose to withdraw more than a certain portion of their saved capital in a single year they pay tax on it.

    And they should be allowed to do whatever they like with their owned money once they have paid tax.
    But why should the state enhance the pension fund - that would be absolutely right if the fund is to provide for retirement but I cannot understand why tax relief should be given for purchasing a sports car at 55
    But it's OK to buy a sports car at 65?
    Christ - why don't you read what I said. Tax relief should be given only for pension funds that provide a pension in retirement!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    isam said:

    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    Interesting that Cameron's intervention is not decisive in that poll, though. Even with his recommendation Remain only leads by 4%.
    Do you think that's because people assume he will back Remain when asked the first question?
    I think it's probably a reflexive response for most people and they don't give it too much thought either way.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    Because if they choose to withdraw more than a certain portion of their saved capital in a single year they pay tax on it.

    And they should be allowed to do whatever they like with their owned money once they have paid tax.
    But why should the state enhance the pension fund - that would be absolutely right if the fund is to provide for retirement but I cannot understand why tax relief should be given for purchasing a sports car at 55
    How many people have actually bought sports cars? The data from the industry suggests that retirees are very boring!

    In any event, the way pensions work is that it is not tax relief, it is tax deferral (although obviously the money is invested gross and retirees may be on a lower tax rate when they draw out the money: these are incentives to save).

    So: the tax relief is to encourage saving. Personally I believe saving is a good thing as it helps promote capital formation.

    If people choose to withdraw it at whatever point they pay tax on it over and above a limited proportion.

    I don't see why the government should get involved in telling people how to spend their savings.

  • You make my point nicely Malcolm.

    Your dichotomy is this: if the English were to vote on Scots independence you'd be gone in an instant, unfortunately for us too many of your countrymen realised they were better off suckling on our teats.

    I have very little interest in your teats, but perhaps you could provide some evidence for the massive English support for Scottish independence?
    I live in England

    So none then?
    Fair enough.
  • Pulpstar said:

    TKA What's your issue with Workie :D ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhOp8BJa2hk

    Dood old Workie...forcing you boss to chip in his employees piss-away fund...oh, and let's get Joe Tax Payer to chip in too
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited October 2015

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    Because if they choose to withdraw more than a certain portion of their saved capital in a single year they pay tax on it.

    And they should be allowed to do whatever they like with their owned money once they have paid tax.
    But why should the state enhance the pension fund - that would be absolutely right if the fund is to provide for retirement but I cannot understand why tax relief should be given for purchasing a sports car at 55
    But it's OK to buy a sports car at 65?
    Christ - why don't you read what I said. Tax relief should be given only for pension funds that provide a pension in retirement!
    So it would be wrong to use the pension income to buy a sports car?

    You want HMG to control how that money is spent - Yes?

    Perhaps the state should simply take all of the money, and provide pensioners with vouchers towards food, drink, energy and the other necessities of retirement, excluding luxuries which they can finance themselves through other means.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    Because if they choose to withdraw more than a certain portion of their saved capital in a single year they pay tax on it.

    And they should be allowed to do whatever they like with their owned money once they have paid tax.
    But why should the state enhance the pension fund - that would be absolutely right if the fund is to provide for retirement but I cannot understand why tax relief should be given for purchasing a sports car at 55
    But it's OK to buy a sports car at 65?
    Christ - why don't you read what I said. Tax relief should be given only for pension funds that provide a pension in retirement!
    With horrible annuity rates about, why would anyone not take the maximum lump sum on retirement then invest it themselves to earn a better rate ? Tax reasons are the only reason I can think not, but people can form their own view on that or consult an IFA.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    Interesting that Cameron's intervention is not decisive in that poll, though. Even with his recommendation Remain only leads by 4%.
    Moving 50/50 to 52/48 (and presumably would also work the other way) seems pretty decisive to me!
    A 2% swing is MoE stuff. It would need to be 5%+ to be considered decisive.
    If something is 50/50 a 1 vote shift is decisive...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited October 2015
    @Thekrakenawakes Defined contribution pension schemes are long term the only sure and affordable method employers and employees have of providing a pension.

    What alternatives do you suggest ?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    Interesting that Cameron's intervention is not decisive in that poll, though. Even with his recommendation Remain only leads by 4%.
    Moving 50/50 to 52/48 (and presumably would also work the other way) seems pretty decisive to me!
    A 2% swing is MoE stuff. It would need to be 5%+ to be considered decisive.
    If something is 50/50 a 1 vote shift is decisive...
    If it happened like that, yes, it would decide the result but a 4% lead following Cameron's recommendation is very marginal and unpickable during the campaign itself in a way a 10%+ lead would probably not be.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    The cost of the NI relief (I think that's the only relief rather than defferral one gets) must be miniscule compared to the cost of legacy public sector DB schemes.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    watford30 said:

    I was listening to piece about the pension changes and it ignited some thoughts I'd had for a while namely, I can absolutely understand the rationale of giving tax relief for individuals to fund their retirement through a personal pension.

    What I cannot get to grips with is why that tax relief is given for those who under the new rules can piss away their pension fund at 55. What makes it worse is that employers are now being forced to chip in to this pension / piss-away fund too.

    'Piss away' - spend their own carefully saved money.
    exactly , their money that they will have paid tax on.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492


    You make my point nicely Malcolm.

    Your dichotomy is this: if the English were to vote on Scots independence you'd be gone in an instant, unfortunately for us too many of your countrymen realised they were better off suckling on our teats.

    I have very little interest in your teats, but perhaps you could provide some evidence for the massive English support for Scottish independence?
    I live in England

    So none then?
    Fair enough.
    I can't ever remember talking to anybody that was pleased the Scots voted to remain.

    I'm not sure how you think the majority of people in England view Sturgeon, Salmond et al but it was very disappointing when you voted to keep your hands in the till.

    We're stuck with you I'm afraid to say

  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'm always amazed these places are vacant/abandoned in such postcodes.
    Paradise lost and found: Fascinating pictures inside the crumbling manor house that was once home to epic poet John Milton

    Berkyn Manor in Horton, Slough, has been a family home for 450 years - once to Paradise Lost poet John Milton
    It has been lying empty since 1987, and has succumbed to damage beyond repair by nearly three decades of neglect
    Haunting images taken inside show the dilapidated interior, where age old possessions have been lost in time

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3284238/Paradise-lost-Fascinating-pictures-inside-crumbling-manor-house-home-epic-poet-John-Milton.html#ixzz3pI5cwHuv

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    50 for Younus Khan. Pak 166/3
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Can I second what others have said re BJO and Mrs BJO. Best wishes to you both and I hope that things work out for the best and you are soon back here.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Pulpstar said:

    TKA What's your issue with Workie :D ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhOp8BJa2hk

    Dood old Workie...forcing you boss to chip in his employees piss-away fund...oh, and let's get Joe Tax Payer to chip in too
    Kracken, you remind me of a typical lefty who pisses it up against a wall during his/her working life and then whines about the pension the state provides.

    I have saved VERY hard for my retirement and will not be a burden to the taxpayer in retirement ) so I reckon after foregoing a lot during my working life, If I want to buy a sports car (which I have on a PCP) , why shouldn't I. (and the Govt got 20% of the cost in VAT )

    The left always want to control other peoples money and stop them from doing things.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    Interesting that Cameron's intervention is not decisive in that poll, though. Even with his recommendation Remain only leads by 4%.
    Moving 50/50 to 52/48 (and presumably would also work the other way) seems pretty decisive to me!
    I actually think that if Cameron recommended Leave then it will be more decisive in favour of leaving. The number of people who can be swayed to remain by Cameron seems like a much smaller group to me than those that can be swayed to leave by him if comes back empty handed.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    edited October 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    Tim Farron ‏@timfarron 29m29 minutes ago

    @ChrisMasonBBC @TheSun It's my pen name.

    Heh
    It's the new Ed/David....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    The most likely is probably the usual by-election pattern in safe seats - low turnout, big fall in majority in absolute numbers, but nothing very memorable.

    Interesting that Corbyn's view on the EU will affect voters more than Cameron's. I assume this is because Cameron is just assumed to be likely to end up recommending Remain, while some people aren't so sure what Corbyn (or Labour generally) will say.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    I'm always amazed these places are vacant/abandoned in such postcodes.

    Paradise lost and found: Fascinating pictures inside the crumbling manor house that was once home to epic poet John Milton

    Berkyn Manor in Horton, Slough, has been a family home for 450 years - once to Paradise Lost poet John Milton
    It has been lying empty since 1987, and has succumbed to damage beyond repair by nearly three decades of neglect
    Haunting images taken inside show the dilapidated interior, where age old possessions have been lost in time

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3284238/Paradise-lost-Fascinating-pictures-inside-crumbling-manor-house-home-epic-poet-John-Milton.html#ixzz3pI5cwHuv

    I do wonder how much it would cost to buy that Manor and get it back into a liveable condition.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    Pulpstar said:

    TKA What's your issue with Workie :D ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhOp8BJa2hk

    Dood old Workie...forcing you boss to chip in his employees piss-away fund...oh, and let's get Joe Tax Payer to chip in too
    Kracken, you remind me of a typical lefty who pisses it up against a wall during his/her working life and then whines about the pension the state provides.

    I have saved VERY hard for my retirement and will not be a burden to the taxpayer in retirement ) so I reckon after foregoing a lot during my working life, If I want to buy a sports car (which I have on a PCP) , why shouldn't I. (and the Govt got 20% of the cost in VAT )

    The left always want to control other peoples money and stop them from doing things.
    Kracken objects to *every* form of tax relief, allowance or avoidance.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    5,000 people in EU poll for YouGov... 50/50 (more or less)

    Cameron and Corbyn's views will influence voters, Farage neutral, Fallon question not asked

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/

    Interesting that Cameron's intervention is not decisive in that poll, though. Even with his recommendation Remain only leads by 4%.
    Moving 50/50 to 52/48 (and presumably would also work the other way) seems pretty decisive to me!
    I actually think that if Cameron recommended Leave then it will be more decisive in favour of leaving. The number of people who can be swayed to remain by Cameron seems like a much smaller group to me than those that can be swayed to leave by him if comes back empty handed.
    If Cameron recommends we leave then that's almost certainly what will happen. In the meantime, polls showing 50/50 can only help him out as he tries to negotiate.

    It would be interesting to know why Newsnight dropped the poll though, what did they lead with last night?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    You have to wonder how Milton bashed out Paradise Lost on a typewriter like that.
Sign In or Register to comment.