One of the things I actually quite like about the leadership contest is that all the candidates have expressed their Brexit plans based on their area of specialism, so Javid has spoken of solving the border issue, Leadom has spoken about how to start getting the necessary legislation through parliament, and so forth. None is the entire picture, but working together as a coordinated team it actually gives me confidence that Brexit can be handled successfully.
0-15 child 15-30 young adult 30-45? 45-60 middle aged 60-75 silver surfer 75-90 old 90+ good for their age
Doing cocaine in your 30s is after your young adult phase.
IMHO
0-15: child 15-25: young adult 25-35: early middle age 35-45: middle age 45-55: late middle age 55-65: early old 65-75: old 75-85: very old 85-dead: frail elderly
0-15 child 15-30 young adult 30-45? 45-60 middle aged 60-75 silver surfer 75-90 old 90+ good for their age
Doing cocaine in your 30s is after your young adult phase.
IMHO
0-15: child 15-25: young adult 25-35: early middle age 35-45: middle age 45-55: late middle age 55-65: early old 65-75: old 75-85: very old 85-dead: frail elderly
0-15 child 15-30 young adult 30-45? 45-60 middle aged 60-75 silver surfer 75-90 old 90+ good for their age
Doing cocaine in your 30s is after your young adult phase.
IMHO
0-15: child 15-25: young adult 25-35: early middle age 35-45: middle age 45-55: late middle age 55-65: early old 65-75: old 75-85: very old 85-dead: frail elderly
I prefer Verulamius' age categories
I go with the traditional medical model. Senile means older than the examining doctor.
@jessicaelgot 5h5 hours ago More Jessica Elgot Retweeted Ridge on Sunday Let’s be clear about what this change would mean - it would force women whose babies have a foetal abnormality detected after 12 weeks, eg like Edwards Syndrome (which causes death in ~95% of cases within a year) to give birth to their babies and watch them die
Speaking of Tameside, Widnes and Sunderland, I would love to hear more from those hoping to be next PM as well as the opposition parties about what on earth they hope to do to start increasing the opportunities in these areas.
There are three things for me that are critical
1 - education needs to be valued more greatly by the local populations and vastly improved
2 - devolution of powers neeeds to happen on a grand scale, including the ability to raise money and spend it how the locals desire, along with the associated risks being borne locally
3 - vast investment in transport to and between the regions, HS2 must happen in parallel with NPR to link the cities but intra urban investment is also badly lacking.
Even with those delivered, I struggle to see much of a positive future for many of the towns and cities whose reason for existing has long since gone.
Maybe the idea of managed decline may at some point have to be on the table for some places.
1. Does any other country have a phrase similar to, “too clever by half”? Educational opportunities are there so I’m hardly clear what you mean by vastly improved. It comes to desire, desire to learn and desire to move away from culturally and emotionally familiar areas to better yourself. Now, you might say that there are a wider range of factors here, and I wouldn’t completely disagree but, for example, it’s never been easier to get into university.
2. It will never happen, if only because the moment there are meaningful divergences the cry of “postcode lottery and something must be done” goes up. People love the idea of devolution but too often it seems to be reduced to “local towns for local people” and professional level whining.
3. It’s long been a state fixation that links are too and from London (see also France and Paris), vertical rather than horizontal. The problem is that London is so far ahead of the rest of the UK in the strength of its economy that the business case for any transport infrastructure involving London is almost always significantly better. Plus national news journalist live in London so it’s easy to pick holes.
Managed decline is interesting. One could have made the same point about Liverpool 30 years ago. Although I struggle to see a way back for the Lancashire ex-mill towns. The other side of the coin are growth restrictions. I’ve read (but cannot vouch for) the idea that Cambridge would quickly grow to the size of Manchester with limited restraint. Equally, what is the natural size of London? Certainly larger than now.
I don’t have answers but equally I don’t think people do. I’d be loath to return to the 1950s and what David Kynaston calls the era of the “activators”. In retrospect they got virtually nothing right.
Gove could still be prosecuted fot taking drugs back in the 1990s. No statutory limitation would apply to the offence.
If you feel so strongly about it, make a complaint to the police.
It is a story the Opposition parties can reasonably run with. How could the authorities justify NOT taking action. Showing preference to Gove and his ilk clearly brings the law into disrepute.
I don't think it would pass the evidentiary test, so am not sure how you're even getting to a prosecution.
I am geninely confused as to how you think a public confession does not pass the evidentiary test, and also why you think it would not constitute sufficient reason to being a private prosecution.
If someone said “I used to drink and drive all the time 20 years ago, but now I always take a taxi home”, would that constitute sufficient evidence to prosecute them now for past offences of drinking and driving?
IANAL, but I would say "yes".
This site often baffles me with its opinions. I accept that you may find your argument convincing, but please accept that not only do I disagree with it, I am genuinely baffled by your argument. Bad people do bad things, boast that they have done so, and yet do not get arrested? Why is this not obviously wrong?
I'm sure that this has already been answered, but here's the problem:
People lie all the time.
The standard for criminal prosecution is "beyond reasonable doubt". So, the CPS brings a case against said "drink driver". When it gets to court, he pleads not guilty.
The only evidence against him is his previous statements. He says "I exaggerated. While I drank and drove, it was never after more than two glasses of wine."
No jury or magistrate will ever find him guilty because there's simply not enough proof.
Gove could still be prosecuted fot taking drugs back in the 1990s. No statutory limitation would apply to the offence.
If you feel so strongly about it, make a complaint to the police.
It is a story the Opposition parties can reasonably run with. How could the authorities justify NOT taking action. Showing preference to Gove and his ilk clearly brings the law into disrepute.
I don't think it would pass the evidentiary test, so am not sure how you're even getting to a prosecution.
I am geninely confused as to how you think a public confession does not pass the evidentiary test, and also why you think it would not constitute sufficient reason to being a private prosecution.
If someone said “I used to drink and drive all the time 20 years ago, but now I always take a taxi home”, would that constitute sufficient evidence to prosecute them now for past offences of drinking and driving?
IANAL, but I would say "yes".
This site often baffles me with its opinions. I accept that you may find your argument convincing, but please accept that not only do I disagree with it, I am genuinely baffled by your argument. Bad people do bad things, boast that they have done so, and yet do not get arrested? Why is this not obviously wrong?
I'm sure that this has already been answered, but here's the problem:
People lie all the time.
The standard for criminal prosecution is "beyond reasonable doubt". So, the CPS brings a case against said "drink driver". When it gets to court, he pleads not guilty.
The only evidence against him is his previous statements. He says "I exaggerated. While I drank and drove, it was never after more than two glasses of wine."
No jury or magistrate will ever find him guilty because there's simply not enough proof.
In Gove's case :"Someone gave me some white powder which I snorted. I didn't know what it was but was frightened of appearing unsophisticated by not knowing, so I snorted it without asking. I thought that in the political context that line of defence would make me look weaker than the act itself, so I made the best fist I could by "admitting" the offence.
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
It's a bit difficult to tell if ther's a problem with the cladding from here, no?
If the building's fundamentally on fire, it is going to burn down sooner or later. it's about timings.
But a modern building, built to current building regulations should never engulf like that, surely?
Are we talking about a certified and occupied building, or a construction site?
I think it's occupied already - on hearing the story, I thought it was the upcoming Riverside Development east of Renwick Road (there's even going to be a new train station here).
On the subject of fertility, the 2001 Derby winner is still producing Derby winners 16 years later.
Galileo's spunk is worth a mint.
And three cheers for Weatherbys for recognising natural coverings only when every bloody showjumper you see is the result of AI or cloning. Must have made a lot of difference to his happiness over the years.
£240k for a one bedroomed flat? Barking seems appropriate on so many levels.
And the floor plan has no numbers on it, nowhere on the ad does it say how many square feet you get for your £240k in Barking. I’m going to guess it’s closer to 400 than 500.
That's £580/sq ft (or €700).
For that price, you can get a decent apartment in a nice part of Berlin. You can even get a pretty decent place in Los Angeles.
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
On housing benefit. If it didn't exist, the aggregate number of properties and aggregate number of people needing to be housed wouldn't change. Since landlords would still wish to avoid voids I assume, wouldn't 'ceteris paribus' the average rent simply fall and occupancy remain unchanged therefore benefiting the taxpayer by billions ? Also the average renter.
0-15 child 15-30 young adult 30-45? 45-60 middle aged 60-75 silver surfer 75-90 old 90+ good for their age
Doing cocaine in your 30s is after your young adult phase.
IMHO
0-15: child 15-25: young adult 25-35: early middle age 35-45: middle age 45-55: late middle age 55-65: early old 65-75: old 75-85: very old 85-dead: frail elderly
This makes me middle middle age. I'm not sure if I like this.
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
So if you’re working minimum wage, and getting housing benefit, in London, you can possibly be a net contributor?
It may be unfair, but I suspect you'd be shocked how disliked London is in the rest of the country. And it extends across all classes of voters.
I’m well aware how much provincials hate the people who fund their lifestyle, as are most Londoners. That’s why a mayor who speaks for them in the face of an onslaught from angry freeloaders is doing ok.
I work in London but live in Woking. Does that make me a hardworker or a free-loader?
You make a valid point though.
London's wealth isn't entirely generated by Londoners - but the entire south east region and beyond as well as the investment the Government has put in in infrastructure such as London transport. Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
It wasn't that long ago Grayling and Khan were heralding Crossrail 2 - a £40 billion scheme to make the journeys of commuters from Twickenham, Wimbledon and Surbiton into work easier. I expect residents of Tamside, Widnes and Sunderland would love that sort of cash spent on their routes to work.
Good point. But Brexit should solve any problems getting to work in Sunderland
And the points I raised were of course part of the reason many voted for Brexit - cos Sunderland barely gets a tiny percentage of the transport investment Surbiton does.
What is the best way to work out where money would be spent?
Because public transport in London runs with much lower subsidies per mile of passenger transport than that in Sunderland.
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
On housing benefit. If it didn't exist, the aggregate number of properties and aggregate number of people needing to be housed wouldn't change. Since landlords would still wish to avoid voids I assume, wouldn't 'ceteris paribus' the average rent simply fall and occupancy remain unchanged therefore benefiting the taxpayer by billions ? Also the average renter.
Absolutely correct.
Housing benefit is a benefit to landlords, not tenants. As it does not increase the amount of housing in existence, all it does is increase price.
Great, so Labour simply need to show evidence of this, and the person concerned making a public statement about the unacceptability of their previous views.
A sincere apology IS the evidence. Coupled with no re-offending. Public is appropriate if it's a public figure. All good. Going beyond that risks straying into McCarthy territory.
Gove could still be prosecuted fot taking drugs back in the 1990s. No statutory limitation would apply to the offence.
If you feel so strongly about it, make a complaint to the police.
It is a story the Opposition parties can reasonably run with. How could the authorities justify NOT taking action. Showing preference to Gove and his ilk clearly brings the law into disrepute.
I don't think it would pass the evidentiary test, so am not sure how you're even getting to a prosecution.
I am geninely confused as to how you think a public confession does not pass the evidentiary test, and also why you think it would not constitute sufficient reason to being a private prosecution.
If someone said “I used to drink and drive all the time 20 years ago, but now I always take a taxi home”, would that constitute sufficient evidence to prosecute them now for past offences of drinking and driving?
IANAL, but I would say "yes".
This site often baffles me with its opinions. I accept that you may find your argument convincing, but please accept that not only do I disagree with it, I am genuinely baffled by your argument. Bad people do bad things, boast that they have done so, and yet do not get arrested? Why is this not obviously wrong?
I'm sure that this has already been answered, but here's the problem:
People lie all the time.
The standard for criminal prosecution is "beyond reasonable doubt". So, the CPS brings a case against said "drink driver". When it gets to court, he pleads not guilty.
The only evidence against him is his previous statements. He says "I exaggerated. While I drank and drove, it was never after more than two glasses of wine."
No jury or magistrate will ever find him guilty because there's simply not enough proof.
The standard for conviction is beyond reasonable doubt. The standard for bringing it to the attention of [whoever] for criminal trial is a prima facie level of evidence that the person has committed a crime. As to your contention that no jury would convict, I'm happy to test that by letting it go to trial and see what they would say. Maybe they'll surprise you, as Clive Ponting so demonstrated.
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
Working age people in London on lower incomes tend to have the most kids - so better to look at it at a household level allowing for education and other services. Few people under 35 paying their way can afford a house big enough for more than one child in London these days - unless you are eligible for social housIng or HB - the former move out. And many pensioners did pay in for over 40 years.
To suggest all or almost all workers are net financial contributors at a household level and in terms of taxes paid vs welfare and services consumed isn’t credible in large parts of the capital.
Let’s hope she never intends breeding with her equally vile husband .
She's 51.
She has aged well. All the ugliness is on the inside.
Her voice is appalling as is the substance of her words! I cannot see any upside to her as Tory leader for the Tories as the only place she might pick up votes is Merseyside and I have not seen very many prospects for Tory gains in recent elections in that neck of the woods. She will get knocked out early on I should imagine!
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
Are you considering the vast sums spent on things like Crossrail, bus subsidy, tube subsidy etc. that although not directly are taken out by the individual, they are benefitting directly from them.
£240k for a one bedroomed flat? Barking seems appropriate on so many levels.
And the floor plan has no numbers on it, nowhere on the ad does it say how many square feet you get for your £240k in Barking. I’m going to guess it’s closer to 400 than 500.
That's £580/sq ft (or €700).
For that price, you can get a decent apartment in a nice part of Berlin. You can even get a pretty decent place in Los Angeles.
Mine in Dubai is £250/ sqft, 20 mins from the financial centre. Obviously if you want to live in the DIFC or marina it’s double that price (or more).
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
On housing benefit. If it didn't exist, the aggregate number of properties and aggregate number of people needing to be housed wouldn't change. Since landlords would still wish to avoid voids I assume, wouldn't 'ceteris paribus' the average rent simply fall and occupancy remain unchanged therefore benefiting the taxpayer by billions ? Also the average renter.
At some point the rent accrued would not cover the expenses of renting out the flat. So the rent would fall and landlords would sell until a new equilibrium price shook out. You can't make private individuals rent to people.
"For the first time, the Iowa poll accounts for new rules proposed this year by the Iowa Democratic Party that will allow Iowans to participate in a virtual caucus online or over the phone."
Overall, 24% say they favor the former vice president, with 16% backing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 15% Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and 14% South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. California Sen. Kamala Harris rounds out the five over 5% with 7% support.
I'm *amazed* that you are so utterly blind to anti-Semitism amongst your political friends, yet are so acutely sensitive to perceived racism by your enemies.
It's almost as though you don't actually care about racism, except as a political weapon.
Not an accusation against you but it is undeniable that the reverse also applies and widely - that antisemitism in Labour is being exploited to the hilt by political opponents many of whom are not as a general rule the most passionate of warriors against racism.
(Snip)
Yep, I agree with that. Some of the attacks against anti-Semitism within Labour are somewhat blunted by comments made by the same accusers against - say - Muslims.
0-15 child 15-30 young adult 30-45? 45-60 middle aged 60-75 silver surfer 75-90 old 90+ good for their age
Doing cocaine in your 30s is after your young adult phase.
IMHO
0-15: child 15-25: young adult 25-35: early middle age 35-45: middle age 45-55: late middle age 55-65: early old 65-75: old 75-85: very old 85-dead: frail elderly
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
On housing benefit. If it didn't exist, the aggregate number of properties and aggregate number of people needing to be housed wouldn't change. Since landlords would still wish to avoid voids I assume, wouldn't 'ceteris paribus' the average rent simply fall and occupancy remain unchanged therefore benefiting the taxpayer by billions ? Also the average renter.
At some point the rent accrued would not cover the expenses of renting out the flat. So the rent would fall and landlords would sell until a new equilibrium price shook out. You can't make private individuals rent to people.
Well if landlords need to sell up then FTBs may benefit.
Maybe its because I like him but I can't help feeling that this is a story that our oh so clean and ethical media like to get their knickers in a twist about and most people will just shrug their shoulders.
Everyone who has given our drugs policy a second's thought must realise that we only maintain the lines (ha) that we do to make our Brexit policy look rational. Everyone knows it doesn't work, that drug use is endemic in all social classes, that our war on drugs has been irredeemably lost and we need to do something different. If I was half as bright as Gove I would seize that message and run with it.
David , it is a pity he is a lying hypocrite with all that supposed intellect. Methinks he is well overated and instead is just a jumped up thickie in reality.
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
On housing benefit. If it didn't exist, the aggregate number of properties and aggregate number of people needing to be housed wouldn't change. Since landlords would still wish to avoid voids I assume, wouldn't 'ceteris paribus' the average rent simply fall and occupancy remain unchanged therefore benefiting the taxpayer by billions ? Also the average renter.
At some point the rent accrued would not cover the expenses of renting out the flat. So the rent would fall and landlords would sell until a new equilibrium price shook out. You can't make private individuals rent to people.
Well if landlords need to sell up then FTBs may benefit.
Gove would have been a first class PM. But he has blown it now completely. He is exposed as a hypocrite and, just as importantly, someone who happily flouts the law when it suits him. Certainly not what we would want of a PM.
He would have been absolute crap. Coming to it when you think a lying cheating no mark would make a great PM.
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
Are you considering the vast sums spent on things like Crossrail, bus subsidy, tube subsidy etc. that although not directly are taken out by the individual, they are benefitting directly from them.
Of course. Let's just play with numbers for a second. Let's imagine that the total annual subsidies* ** for transport in London were £3.5bn***.
And there are around 20 million people who regularly travel on London transport. (Which is probably about right, when you include people who come into the capital for one reason or another). So that's around £150/user a year. Even someone earning £12,000/year (i.e. a worker) is going to be paying (across NI, VAT, council tax) 20x that a year in tax.
* Capital spending needs to be spread out over it's life of operation, you know, like how companies do their accounts ** You also need to include payments from rail companies, and the Congestion Charge. Don't forget that a number of the London rail lines are profitable and pay money to the Exchequor every year. *** That's actually too high. TfL's total grants is £3.4bn, and that doesn't include any income. But I'm using it to prove my point.
I'm *amazed* that you are so utterly blind to anti-Semitism amongst your political friends, yet are so acutely sensitive to perceived racism by your enemies.
It's almost as though you don't actually care about racism, except as a political weapon.
Not an accusation against you but it is undeniable that the reverse also applies and widely - that antisemitism in Labour is being exploited to the hilt by political opponents many of whom are not as a general rule the most passionate of warriors against racism.
(Snip)
Yep, I agree with that. Some of the attacks against anti-Semitism within Labour are somewhat blunted by comments made by the same accusers against - say - Muslims.
Is Rory Stewart underpriced? Several polls make him the most popular Tory amongst non Tories, and actually the Conservative Party has historically had an instinct for self preservation, usually when all the alternatives lead to extinction.
The risk of an extinction level event for the Tories with Raab or Johnson for example, is pretty high. So given that a fair few of the headbanger members have gone off to Farage, and a fairly large bloc of MPs won't have Johnson at any price, could it be that the only actual Conservative in the race might do surprisingly well?
He does speak human, and although his failed drug test is exotic Opium rather than the commonplace Cocaine, his Eton/Black Watch commission/Oxford first (unlike Johnson's second) and MI6 career really impresses a certain kind of Tory MP.
Johnson has enemies, Stewart doesn't. If he gets into the last two, I think he might just make it all the way.
Would love to live in a country where Rory would walk a GE as PM, but I don't. I think Tory members know this too. Foreign Secretary please for Mr Stewart.
After spending so much time saying those seeking to renegotiate are being misleading and no deal would be both difficult and a bad idea? He's not getting that job under Boris.
On housing benefit. If it didn't exist, the aggregate number of properties and aggregate number of people needing to be housed wouldn't change. Since landlords would still wish to avoid voids I assume, wouldn't 'ceteris paribus' the average rent simply fall and occupancy remain unchanged therefore benefiting the taxpayer by billions ? Also the average renter.
Perhaps. However -
The market based argument against rent controls is that the consequent fall in rents would lead to a big reduction in properties available for letting as landlords pull out. Why not here too?
And how about extending the logic to tax credits topping up low pay? If they were abolished would wages rise hence saving the taxpayer billions?
The standard for conviction is beyond reasonable doubt. The standard for bringing it to the attention of [whoever] for criminal trial is a prima facie level of evidence that the person has committed a crime. As to your contention that no jury would convict, I'm happy to test that by letting it go to trial and see what they would say. Maybe they'll surprise you, as Clive Ponting so demonstrated.
You can sneak to whomever you like for whatever you like, the only bound being that your evidence is not so weak that you are wasting police time by advancing it. The DPP must satisfy himorherself that there is a reasonable chance of getting a conviction *and* that it is in the public interest to prosecute. On the first, there probably isn't, and on the second I'd expect the DPP to be wary of being used as a tool in a political battle. Not saying it won't happen (see under Huhne) but it's odds agin (see under Johnson, B.)
Gove could still be prosecuted fot taking drugs back in the 1990s. No statutory limitation would apply to the offence.
If you feel so strongly about it, make a complaint to the police.
It is a story the Opposition parties can reasonably run with. How could the authorities justify NOT taking action. Showing preference to Gove and his ilk clearly brings the law into disrepute.
I don't think it would pass the evidentiary test, so am not sure how you're even getting to a prosecution.
I am geninely confused as to how you think a public confession does not pass the evidentiary test, and also why you think it would not constitute sufficient reason to being a private prosecution.
He has friends in high places, they will not want the publicity
I'm *amazed* that you are so utterly blind to anti-Semitism amongst your political friends, yet are so acutely sensitive to perceived racism by your enemies.
It's almost as though you don't actually care about racism, except as a political weapon.
Not an accusation against you but it is undeniable that the reverse also applies and widely - that antisemitism in Labour is being exploited to the hilt by political opponents many of whom are not as a general rule the most passionate of warriors against racism.
(Snip)
Yep, I agree with that. Some of the attacks against anti-Semitism within Labour are somewhat blunted by comments made by the same accusers against - say - Muslims.
(Cue someone saying: "Islam isn't a race!")
How about me?
"Are Somalis and Indonesians the same race?"
It is about context, innit. In this country, you can pinpoint the geographical origin and skin colour of someone with near certainty if he is described as muslim. In Mecca at the Hajj, say, or at the World Council of Islam if there is such a thing, it is rather less of a clue.
And race isn't much of an actual thing in any circumstances anyway.
Working age people in London on lower incomes tend to have the most kids - so better to look at it at a household level allowing for education and other services. Few people under 35 paying their way can afford a house big enough for more than one child in London these days - unless you are eligible for social housIng or HB - the former move out. And many pensioners did pay in for over 40 years.
To suggest all or almost all workers are net financial contributors at a household level and in terms of taxes paid vs welfare and services consumed isn’t credible in large parts of the capital.
It may not be credible, but it is - I'm afraid - an empirical fact
I need to go pack boxes now (we're moving house), but I will share some economics articles on it to your email later.
This isn't just a London point, by the way, it's a global one. Simply: government spending is dominated by healthcare and pension costs, and those of working age tend to have very little of either.
Now, if you're not working, have three kids, and live on benefits, then (sure) you'll almost certainly be negative. But the break-even (even with two kids) is probably only about £20,000 of income from a total tax take perspective.
If you want to argue for "whole life" then that changes the numbers of course. It makes the best people to have those who come, work for five years and then piss off back to Estonia, and then a few people who've paid millions in tax. And then almost everyone else is a net recipient.
Is Rory Stewart underpriced? Several polls make him the most popular Tory amongst non Tories, and actually the Conservative Party has historically had an instinct for self preservation, usually when all the alternatives lead to extinction.
The risk of an extinction level event for the Tories with Raab or Johnson for example, is pretty high. So given that a fair few of the headbanger members have gone off to Farage, and a fairly large bloc of MPs won't have Johnson at any price, could it be that the only actual Conservative in the race might do surprisingly well?
He does speak human, and although his failed drug test is exotic Opium rather than the commonplace Cocaine, his Eton/Black Watch commission/Oxford first (unlike Johnson's second) and MI6 career really impresses a certain kind of Tory MP.
Johnson has enemies, Stewart doesn't. If he gets into the last two, I think he might just make it all the way.
Would love to live in a country where Rory would walk a GE as PM, but I don't. I think Tory members know this too. Foreign Secretary please for Mr Stewart.
One of the things I actually quite like about the leadership contest is that all the candidates have expressed their Brexit plans based on their area of specialism, so Javid has spoken of solving the border issue, Leadom has spoken about how to start getting the necessary legislation through parliament, and so forth. None is the entire picture, but working together as a coordinated team it actually gives me confidence that Brexit can be handled successfully.
I'm *amazed* that you are so utterly blind to anti-Semitism amongst your political friends, yet are so acutely sensitive to perceived racism by your enemies.
It's almost as though you don't actually care about racism, except as a political weapon.
Not an accusation against you but it is undeniable that the reverse also applies and widely - that antisemitism in Labour is being exploited to the hilt by political opponents many of whom are not as a general rule the most passionate of warriors against racism.
(Snip)
Yep, I agree with that. Some of the attacks against anti-Semitism within Labour are somewhat blunted by comments made by the same accusers against - say - Muslims.
(Cue someone saying: "Islam isn't a race!")
How about me?
"Are Somalis and Indonesians the same race?"
It is about context, innit. In this country, you can pinpoint the geographical origin and skin colour of someone with near certainty if he is described as muslim. In Mecca at the Hajj, say, or at the World Council of Islam if there is such a thing, it is rather less of a clue.
And race isn't much of an actual thing in any circumstances anyway.
Are Bosnians the same race as Somalis?
Are Moroccan Berbers the same race as Malays?
Conversely: are all brown people Muslim (as you seem to suggest)? Or: Are all Muslims brown people?
The standard for conviction is beyond reasonable doubt. The standard for bringing it to the attention of [whoever] for criminal trial is a prima facie level of evidence that the person has committed a crime. As to your contention that no jury would convict, I'm happy to test that by letting it go to trial and see what they would say. Maybe they'll surprise you, as Clive Ponting so demonstrated.
You can sneak to whomever you like for whatever you like, the only bound being that your evidence is not so weak that you are wasting police time by advancing it. The DPP must satisfy himorherself that there is a reasonable chance of getting a conviction *and* that it is in the public interest to prosecute. On the first, there probably isn't, and on the second I'd expect the DPP to be wary of being used as a tool in a political battle. Not saying it won't happen (see under Huhne) but it's odds agin (see under Johnson, B.)
open and shut case , the criminal has admitted his guilt and should be in the scrubs by now.
I'm *amazed* that you are so utterly blind to anti-Semitism amongst your political friends, yet are so acutely sensitive to perceived racism by your enemies.
It's almost as though you don't actually care about racism, except as a political weapon.
Not an accusation against you but it is undeniable that the reverse also applies and widely - that antisemitism in Labour is being exploited to the hilt by political opponents many of whom are not as a general rule the most passionate of warriors against racism.
(Snip)
Yep, I agree with that. Some of the attacks against anti-Semitism within Labour are somewhat blunted by comments made by the same accusers against - say - Muslims.
Many Londoners (perhaps a third) take out far more than they pay in - in terms of housing benefit, social housing, tax credits, welfare generally etc - and certainly don't pay their way.
If you look at government spending and tax receipts on a year-by-year basis, then working people - unless you have a really serious illness - almost certainly pay in more than they take out. Even if you're on minimum wage, getting housing benefit, that will be the case.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
Are you considering the vast sums spent on things like Crossrail, bus subsidy, tube subsidy etc. that although not directly are taken out by the individual, they are benefitting directly from them.
Of course. Let's just play with numbers for a second. Let's imagine that the total annual subsidies* ** for transport in London were £3.5bn***.
And there are around 20 million people who regularly travel on London transport. (Which is probably about right, when you include people who come into the capital for one reason or another). So that's around £150/user a year. Even someone earning £12,000/year (i.e. a worker) is going to be paying (across NI, VAT, council tax) 20x that a year in tax.
* Capital spending needs to be spread out over it's life of operation, you know, like how companies do their accounts ** You also need to include payments from rail companies, and the Congestion Charge. Don't forget that a number of the London rail lines are profitable and pay money to the Exchequor every year. *** That's actually too high. TfL's total grants is £3.4bn, and that doesn't include any income. But I'm using it to prove my point.
I expect someone earning £12k per year in London would pay a negative rate of tax after housing benefits and tax credits are taken into account. There's no way they are paying £3k net in tax.
I'm *amazed* that you are so utterly blind to anti-Semitism amongst your political friends, yet are so acutely sensitive to perceived racism by your enemies.
It's almost as though you don't actually care about racism, except as a political weapon.
Not an accusation against you but it is undeniable that the reverse also applies and widely - that antisemitism in Labour is being exploited to the hilt by political opponents many of whom are not as a general rule the most passionate of warriors against racism.
(Snip)
Yep, I agree with that. Some of the attacks against anti-Semitism within Labour are somewhat blunted by comments made by the same accusers against - say - Muslims.
(Cue someone saying: "Islam isn't a race!")
I will make your day , you are talking bollox , Islam is not a race it is a religion.
One of the things I actually quite like about the leadership contest is that all the candidates have expressed their Brexit plans based on their area of specialism, so Javid has spoken of solving the border issue, Leadom has spoken about how to start getting the necessary legislation through parliament, and so forth. None is the entire picture, but working together as a coordinated team it actually gives me confidence that Brexit can be handled successfully.
you are easily fooled by idiots
All these people have been at the Brexit coalface, it would be improbable that they did not come away with useful knowledge.
Comments
Asking for a friend
Let’s hope she never intends breeding with her equally vile husband .
If we don't pay the £39bn (or part of it) then that is a one-off saving.
Whereas if you give a pay rise that increases the cost base going forward indefinitely.
Not sure about that...
Who is signing these buildings off ffs?
Verified account
@jessicaelgot
5h5 hours ago
More Jessica Elgot Retweeted Ridge on Sunday
Let’s be clear about what this change would mean - it would force women whose babies have a foetal abnormality detected after 12 weeks, eg like Edwards Syndrome (which causes death in ~95% of cases within a year) to give birth to their babies and watch them die
If the building's fundamentally on fire, it is going to burn down sooner or later. it's about timings.
2. It will never happen, if only because the moment there are meaningful divergences the cry of “postcode lottery and something must be done” goes up. People love the idea of devolution but too often it seems to be reduced to “local towns for local people” and professional level whining.
3. It’s long been a state fixation that links are too and from London (see also France and Paris), vertical rather than horizontal. The problem is that London is so far ahead of the rest of the UK in the strength of its economy that the business case for any transport infrastructure involving London is almost always significantly better. Plus national news journalist live in London so it’s easy to pick holes.
Managed decline is interesting. One could have made the same point about Liverpool 30 years ago. Although I struggle to see a way back for the Lancashire ex-mill towns. The other side of the coin are growth restrictions. I’ve read (but cannot vouch for) the idea that Cambridge would quickly grow to the size of Manchester with limited restraint. Equally, what is the natural size of London? Certainly larger than now.
I don’t have answers but equally I don’t think people do. I’d be loath to return to the 1950s and what David Kynaston calls the era of the “activators”. In retrospect they got virtually nothing right.
Not defending McVey though, it is just one of many half baked Brexit wheezes that collapse when breathed upon by intelligent life.
Aussies need 118 off 11
Eeh read the rest of it. Not sure childbirth at 51 is a great idea to be honest..
People lie all the time.
The standard for criminal prosecution is "beyond reasonable doubt". So, the CPS brings a case against said "drink driver". When it gets to court, he pleads not guilty.
The only evidence against him is his previous statements. He says "I exaggerated. While I drank and drove, it was never after more than two glasses of wine."
No jury or magistrate will ever find him guilty because there's simply not enough proof.
The vast majority of people in "deficit" in a given year, will be the elderly - because the NHS, social care and pensions all go their way*. (The other group in deficit is, of course, children.)
* A large portion of housing benefit, of course, goes to the retired too.
Edit ... Eight after yesterday.
For that price, you can get a decent apartment in a nice part of Berlin. You can even get a pretty decent place in Los Angeles.
If it didn't exist, the aggregate number of properties and aggregate number of people needing to be housed wouldn't change.
Since landlords would still wish to avoid voids I assume, wouldn't 'ceteris paribus' the average rent simply fall and occupancy remain unchanged therefore benefiting the taxpayer by billions ? Also the average renter.
Ah, my coat...
Because public transport in London runs with much lower subsidies per mile of passenger transport than that in Sunderland.
Housing benefit is a benefit to landlords, not tenants. As it does not increase the amount of housing in existence, all it does is increase price.
To suggest all or almost all workers are net financial contributors at a household level and in terms of taxes paid vs welfare and services consumed isn’t credible in large parts of the capital.
Not that I am biased, at 32.
Overall, 24% say they favor the former vice president, with 16% backing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 15% Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and 14% South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. California Sen. Kamala Harris rounds out the five over 5% with 7% support.
(Cue someone saying: "Islam isn't a race!")
Pause.
Nyahh, nyahh, nah-nah, nah!
(runs away)
And there are around 20 million people who regularly travel on London transport. (Which is probably about right, when you include people who come into the capital for one reason or another). So that's around £150/user a year. Even someone earning £12,000/year (i.e. a worker) is going to be paying (across NI, VAT, council tax) 20x that a year in tax.
* Capital spending needs to be spread out over it's life of operation, you know, like how companies do their accounts
** You also need to include payments from rail companies, and the Congestion Charge. Don't forget that a number of the London rail lines are profitable and pay money to the Exchequor every year.
*** That's actually too high. TfL's total grants is £3.4bn, and that doesn't include any income. But I'm using it to prove my point.
"Are Somalis and Indonesians the same race?"
The market based argument against rent controls is that the consequent fall in rents would lead to a big reduction in properties available for letting as landlords pull out. Why not here too?
And how about extending the logic to tax credits topping up low pay? If they were abolished would wages rise hence saving the taxpayer billions?
And race isn't much of an actual thing in any circumstances anyway.
I need to go pack boxes now (we're moving house), but I will share some economics articles on it to your email later.
This isn't just a London point, by the way, it's a global one. Simply: government spending is dominated by healthcare and pension costs, and those of working age tend to have very little of either.
Now, if you're not working, have three kids, and live on benefits, then (sure) you'll almost certainly be negative. But the break-even (even with two kids) is probably only about £20,000 of income from a total tax take perspective.
If you want to argue for "whole life" then that changes the numbers of course. It makes the best people to have those who come, work for five years and then piss off back to Estonia, and then a few people who've paid millions in tax. And then almost everyone else is a net recipient.
Are Moroccan Berbers the same race as Malays?
Conversely: are all brown people Muslim (as you seem to suggest)?
Or: Are all Muslims brown people?