The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
With this and Cliff case, the bbc taxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
With this and Cliff case, the bbc taxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
I am guessing they hoped they could get away with it in the same way many IT consultants did for a long time by primarily working at one place, but spending x days a year doing other freelance projects. Lots of tv presenters do after-dinner circuit etc.
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.
I decent result in London will allow Labour to avoid looking at the truth I suspect. That is that out in the marginals outside London, they are not doing anywhere near as well as an Opposition approaching mid-term should be.
They are performing better than Labour managed under Gaitskell in 1960/1961 - and indeed than under Kinnock in 1984/85 & 1988!
Kinnock of course lost both the 1987 and 1992 general elections and it was Wilson not Gaitskill who won in 1964
Indeed but there is little reason to believe that Gaitskell would not have performed at least as well as Wilson in 1964 - quite a few commentators have suggested he would have delivered a bigger Labour majority. The 1992 election would also have been very different had Thatcher still been PM. As it was, Kinnock could have managed a 2017 type result but threw away that prospect by losing control of himself at Sheffield.
But didn't you make another post on Thursday saying maybe you had an over reaction and that your nerves had calm down?
Yes. But as you say, while I cast a little doubt on my Wednesday thoughts, I didn't repudiate them.
Did the dementia tax come up on every other doorstep ?
For all the Tories woes regarding Brexit, windrush there isn't anything like that policy floating about at the moment.
The biggest issue for Tier 1 councils is that adult and child social care is absorbing 60% of their expenditure and increasing towards 80%.
However, the solution is not in the hands of councils but central government.
Yes but politically the inevitable council tax rise is akin to boiling a frog (Also people think it'll go up no matter who is in) whereas the 'dementia tax' was shiny and new . People definitely didn't want to touch it for the very first time.
Council tax, National Insurance and Income tax will be the source for extra social care and NHS funds.
The general election result killed off the idea of a 'dementia tax' for good
Dementia tax already exists.
Unless you have assets worth less than £23,250, you pay for your own residential and nursing care apart from a small allowance.
The proposals in the Conservative manifesto made life easier for long term dementia sufferers, and a larger inheritance for their families compared to the current situation.
A fantastic example to the next generation of allowing a policy to be defined by your political opponents, and failing to put enough of your own people up to defend it.
The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
With this and Cliff case, the bbc taxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
Perhaps its only similarity with Windrush is that something most people would think is black or white turns out to have many shades of grey. Here it is the uncertainty about whether these people who worked for the BBC were actually employed by the corporation. It is a shame parliament has no revising chamber that could catch laws badly drafted by civil servants who went to all the right schools.
The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
With this and Cliff case, the bbc taxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
I am guessing they hoped they could get away with it in the same way many IT consultants did for a long time by primarily working at one place, but spending x days a year doing other freelance projects. Lots of tv presenters do after-dinner circuit etc.
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.
Really boils my piss as a PAYE to see employers dodging Er NI in this way
OT. cyclefree. Thanks for your interesting comment on my cafe owner friend. You're more compassionate than the average PBer. Out of interest one piece of information that I didn't know when I wrote that letter is that he had produced a work permit but it was a fake. One readily available on the internet apparently and whether because it was convincing or he was too inexperienced to know the difference I don't know but £15,000 is a big price to pay for a very honest mistake.
That all makes sense, Roger, but what I can't get my head round is that you blame the Conservatives for this. Do you not know that these rules and penalties were introduced by the last Labour government? The selectivity of your indignation is a wonder to behold.
The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
With this and Cliff case, the bbc taxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
I am guessing they hoped they could get away with it in the same way many IT consultants did for a long time by primarily working at one place, but spending x days a year doing other freelance projects. Lots of tv presenters do after-dinner circuit etc.
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.
Really boils my piss as a PAYE to see employers dodging Er NI in this way
And it annoys me more to see the employees contracors portrayed as victims.
» show previous quotes Why not just make it a driving licence, you can get one regardless of whether you drive a car.
Because they're quite expensive.
ydoethur, surely £20 is not expensive
To get a driving licence you have to be have passed the test to be able drive. That is extremely expensive. Plus what do you do if people lose their licence because of offences?
Richard, You can get a provisional whether you drive or not.
Here in the US the state Departments of Motor Vehicles issue non-driving photo IDs to those that can’t or don’t want to drive.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
With this and Cliff case, the bbc taxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
I am guessing they hoped they could get away with it in the same way many IT consultants did for a long time by primarily working at one place, but spending x days a year doing other freelance projects. Lots of tv presenters do after-dinner circuit etc.
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.
Yup! I’m an IT consultant, as was my father. It’s generally either a six month contract or employment now, which is wreaking havoc when UK maternity leave contracts are often for nine months. The end result is going to be a small number of large firms taking over most IT contracts, at the expense of those who currently earn good day rates as interims.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
another increasing Tory lead....what if this is more like 2015 where the tories end up with a 7% lead?
Hill of beans, nunu!
Under socialism there will be no hills of beans - only rows. Well actually a single bean - divided into 100 equal parts. With the dear leader getting 50 of those parts.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
It starts well enough but meanders into a rant about general practice. One odd thing though is the figures for specialities show women favour anaethesia over surgery -- but can this be due to antisocial hours? Am I missing something here? Don't anaesthetists and surgeons operate together or do anaesthetists change shifts halfway through long operations? If the hours are the same then there must be some other explanation.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
Yes, but the idea that Jeremy “F*** the banks” Corbyn and John “IRA” McDonnell are going to go anything that might help that generation are preposterous.
If I had an 18 year old kid now, I’d suggest that they either go to a Redbrick/Ivyleague uni or start an apprenticeship in law / finance / IT at 18. Spending three years getting £50k in debt for minimal career advancement is pointless financially, even if it’s great fun at the time.
It starts well enough but meanders into a rant about general practice. One odd thing though is the figures for specialities show women favour anaethesia over surgery -- but can this be due to antisocial hours? Am I missing something here? Don't anaesthetists and surgeons operate together or do anaesthetists change shifts halfway through long operations? If the hours are the same then there must be some other explanation.
No idea
I just listen to my GP mate who is pissed off having to cover for the female half of his practice.
On the other hand if ladies head off to GP then the pay gap is going to be something massive since consultants get the big salaries
The BBC employed household names on “an elegant form of zero hours contract”, a tribunal has heard, as three BBC news presenters appealed against a £920,000 tax bill.
Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were “pushed by the BBC” into setting up personal service companies, an arrangement that allowed the corporation to avoid paying employers’ National Insurance contributions. But the contracts came with no benefits and amounted to “no work, no pay”, the court heard.
With this and Cliff case, the bbc taxpayer could be paying a shit tonne of cash.
No matter what the result of the case, the Beeb are going to look like idiots. Someone who works freelance for only one company has come under IR35 for a couple of decades now.
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
I am guessing they hoped they could get away with it in the same way many IT consultants did for a long time by primarily working at one place, but spending x days a year doing other freelance projects. Lots of tv presenters do after-dinner circuit etc.
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.
It was pointed out at the time IR35 was trundling through Gordon's visions of enormous tax-takes that many actors should fall within IR35 and people got annoyed that that actors were exempted. No one could say how people - such as Coronation Street actors who had never played any other part for 20 or 30 years - were not employees.
But the politicians loved the reflected glory from actors and, of course, no senior politician had actors in the family
another increasing Tory lead....what if this is more like 2015 where the tories end up with a 7% lead?
Hill of beans, nunu!
Under socialism there will be no hills of beans - only rows. Well actually a single bean - divided into 100 equal parts. With the dear leader getting 50 of those parts.
See Venezuela for details.
Those of us in favour of capitalism need to keep banging on about it.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
Yes, but the idea that Jeremy “F*** the banks” Corbyn and John “IRA” McDonnell are going to go anything that might help that generation are preposterous.
If I had an 18 year old kid now, I’d suggest that they either go to a Redbrick/Ivyleague uni or start an apprenticeship in law / finance / IT at 18. Spending three years getting £50k in debt for minimal career advancement is pointless financially, even if it’s great fun at the time.
I agree, but people don't judge oppositions as closely as governments. I'd argue Brexit is a similar example: When people want a change, they aren't desperately interested what the change is compared to how clear they are on what they dislike about the status quo.
OT. cyclefree. Thanks for your interesting comment on my cafe owner friend. You're more compassionate than the average PBer. Out of interest one piece of information that I didn't know when I wrote that letter is that he had produced a work permit but it was a fake. One readily available on the internet apparently and whether because it was convincing or he was too inexperienced to know the difference I don't know but £15,000 is a big price to pay for a very honest mistake.
That all makes sense, Roger, but what I can't get my head round is that you blame the Conservatives for this. Do you not know that these rules and penalties were introduced by the last Labour government? The selectivity of your indignation is a wonder to behold.
But but but...the Tories should be running round clearing up all Labour's messes, not just the economy they left us....
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!
There are plenty of people on six figure salaries in London who certainly cannot afford to buy their children flats and to whom the Conservative Brexit plans are a real and present threat to their financial security.
I remember you coming on to PB three nights before the 2017 general election and saying your canvassing had shown it was all going down the pan for Theresa and Con!
Everyone thought your account had been hacked!
For accuracy, it was the Wednesday, and it was based on the reactions to delivering knock-up letters - but yes, I remember TSE contacting me (message, I think, not phone call?), to check whether I had posted the comment or not. I hadn't seen the reaction it caused as i just made a couple of quick posts then settled to to eat and then put the kid to bed.
But that was a first-hand experience; this isn't quite. However, I still feel reasonably confident. My biggest concern is piling up a load of good seconds - though that of itself would be progress. I still can't see us not doing better here this year than in 2014.
But didn't you make another post on Thursday saying maybe you had an over reaction and that your nerves had calm down?
Yes. But as you say, while I cast a little doubt on my Wednesday thoughts, I didn't repudiate them.
Did the dementia tax come up on every other doorstep ?
For all the Tories woes regarding Brexit, windrush there isn't anything like that policy floating about at the moment.
The biggest issue for Tier 1 councils is that adult and child social care is absorbing 60% of their expenditure and increasing towards 80%.
However, the solution is not in the hands of councils but central government.
Yes but politically the inevitable council tax rise is akin to boiling a frog (Also people think it'll go up no matter who is in) whereas the 'dementia tax' was shiny and new . People definitely didn't want to touch it for the very first time.
Council tax, National Insurance and Income tax will be the source for extra social care and NHS funds.
The general election result killed off the idea of a 'dementia tax' for good
Dementia tax already exists.
Unless you have assets worth less than £23,250, you pay for your own residential and nursing care apart from a small allowance.
Only about 25% will ever need residential care, the dementia tax was threatening to take your house after your death to pay for personal at home care
I decent result in London will allow Labour to avoid looking at the truth I suspect. That is that out in the marginals outside London, they are not doing anywhere near as well as an Opposition approaching mid-term should be.
They are performing better than Labour managed under Gaitskell in 1960/1961 - and indeed than under Kinnock in 1984/85 & 1988!
Kinnock of course lost both the 1987 and 1992 general elections and it was Wilson not Gaitskill who won in 1964
Indeed but there is little reason to believe that Gaitskell would not have performed at least as well as Wilson in 1964 - quite a few commentators have suggested he would have delivered a bigger Labour majority. The 1992 election would also have been very different had Thatcher still been PM. As it was, Kinnock could have managed a 2017 type result but threw away that prospect by losing control of himself at Sheffield.
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Not true!
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!
There are plenty of people on six figure salaries in London who certainly cannot afford to buy their children flats and to whom the Conservative Brexit plans are a real and present threat to their financial security.
since you tell us London doesn't vote tory why should they care ?
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!
There are plenty of people on six figure salaries in London who certainly cannot afford to buy their children flats and to whom the Conservative Brexit plans are a real and present threat to their financial security.
Rubbish, they can certainly buy them a flat in London with that much income and assets even if not Kensington and Chelsea.
Brexit is an issue for general not local elections
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Not true!
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
won't the academic bar be set so as to help achieve that result?
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!
People in K&C didn't have their first house bought for them by their parents, and many perceive having to do so for their children if they want to get on the property ladder a major issue they aren't desperately happy with.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
It starts well enough but meanders into a rant about general practice. One odd thing though is the figures for specialities show women favour anaethesia over surgery -- but can this be due to antisocial hours? Am I missing something here? Don't anaesthetists and surgeons operate together or do anaesthetists change shifts halfway through long operations? If the hours are the same then there must be some other explanation.
No idea
I just listen to my GP mate who is pissed off having to cover for the female half of his practice.
On the other hand if ladies head off to GP then the pay gap is going to be something massive since consultants get the big salaries
Our local GP practice is of three part-time female doctors. Roughtly equivalent, on surgery hour worked to 2 FTE’s. Communication skills are streets ahead of both of the two they replaced, one male, one female.
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Not true!
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
Any grad applying will have several offers open at once and on that basis medicine is the most oversubscribed uni course except for maybe dentistry and vets. Whn young Brooke was considering medicine every uni I went to bored me with stats on oversubscription.
it's also fairly self policing since only people with a chance of getting the higher grades in technical subjects are likely to apply
so it's still fairly clear that there are more than enough people capable of being doctors and we haven't been recruiting enough of them, especially blokes.
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Not true!
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
What’s the problem in your opinion, insufficient numbers of qualified students, not enough UK med school places, too many women leaving the profession, immigrant restrictions or validations etc? Genuinely interested in your viewpoint.
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Not true!
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
won't the academic bar be set so as to help achieve that result?
To an extent, as AAA is pretty demanding. At Leicester we let in some with AAB, but must have A in A level chemistry.
There are some good access to Medicine foundation courses for those who have not got the grades.
Overall the problem is retention. Training is both expensive and prolonged, but in both Medicine and Nursing the atrition rates are scary.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!
People in K&C didn't have their first house bought for them by their parents, and many perceive having to do so for their children if they want to get on the property ladder a major issue they aren't desperately happy with.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
When unemployment in the Welsh valleys (and other places) was high and the jobs were elsewhere, people migrated to get a better life (ie employment). Not possible for all of course, but those that are in the best position as a group so to do are precisely the twenty somethings out of full time education. Why not move to an area of better affordability within the UK if a house is so important?
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?
It starts well enough but meanders into a rant about general practice. One odd thing though is the figures for specialities show women favour anaethesia over surgery -- but can this be due to antisocial hours? Am I missing something here? Don't anaesthetists and surgeons operate together or do anaesthetists change shifts halfway through long operations? If the hours are the same then there must be some other explanation.
No idea
I just listen to my GP mate who is pissed off having to cover for the female half of his practice.
On the other hand if ladies head off to GP then the pay gap is going to be something massive since consultants get the big salaries
Our local GP practice is of three part-time female doctors. Roughtly equivalent, on surgery hour worked to 2 FTE’s. Communication skills are streets ahead of both of the two they replaced, one male, one female.
maybe, but an organisation claiming it cant get people has forked out for three people to do the work of two. Now there are all sorts of advantages in having three but maybe the we cant get people argument is just a bit weak.
another increasing Tory lead....what if this is more like 2015 where the tories end up with a 7% lead?
Windrush seems to have absolutely no impact.
More likely a beneficial impact on the Conservatives. Why Labour thought it would be fruitful to bang on about an immigration issue for weeks before an election, rather than on the economic and austerity issues on which they actually do have public sympathy, I have no idea. It is even making me rethink my assessment of Diane Abbott as a political genius!
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
The introduction of All Women Shortlists has been a disgrace since it first happened in the mid-1990s. I live in the key marginal of Norwich North - but will not vote for a gender vetted Labour candidate.
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Not true!
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
What’s the problem in your opinion, insufficient numbers of qualified students, not enough UK med school places, too many women leaving the profession, immigrant restrictions or validations etc? Genuinely interested in your viewpoint.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!
People in K&C didn't have their first house bought for them by their parents, and many perceive having to do so for their children if they want to get on the property ladder a major issue they aren't desperately happy with.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
When unemployment in the Welsh valleys (and other places) was high and the jobs were elsewhere, people migrated to get a better life (ie employment). Not possible for all of course, but those that are in the best position as a group so to do are precisely the twenty somethings out of full time education. Why not move to an area of better affordability within the UK if a house is so important?
Why do people not like the idea of having to choose between home ownership and living near their family, friends, and where they grew up? A decision the last generation didn't have to make. Hmm...
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Not true!
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
What’s the problem in your opinion, insufficient numbers of qualified students, not enough UK med school places, too many women leaving the profession, immigrant restrictions or validations etc? Genuinely interested in your viewpoint.
I am preparing a thread header, so keep watching!
Cool, always good to see thread headers from people with a specialist subject. Looking forward to it
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
Yes, but the idea that Jeremy “F*** the banks” Corbyn and John “IRA” McDonnell are going to go anything that might help that generation are preposterous.
If I had an 18 year old kid now, I’d suggest that they either go to a Redbrick/Ivyleague uni or start an apprenticeship in law / finance / IT at 18. Spending three years getting £50k in debt for minimal career advancement is pointless financially, even if it’s great fun at the time.
Every politician of every hue has of late (well, since the GFC) has been "f*** the banks". As for John "IRA" McDonnell, you are showing your age, dearie.
That Frank Lampard on the cover went to a posh school. He could have got into medicine, I expect, with his O-level Latin and public support for the Conservative Party.
medicine is oversubscribed at something like 10-1
there are more than enough capable candidates, even male ones
Not true!
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
won't the academic bar be set so as to help achieve that result?
To an extent, as AAA is pretty demanding. At Leicester we let in some with AAB, but must have A in A level chemistry.
There are some good access to Medicine foundation courses for those who have not got the grades.
Overall the problem is retention. Training is both expensive and prolonged, but in both Medicine and Nursing the atrition rates are scary.
A grade A at A level today is,however, a great deal easier than prior to the switch from Relative Marking to Absolute Marking which occurred at the end of the 1980s. Circa 25% of candidates manage an A grade nowadays - compared with just 10% under the former system.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!
People in K&C didn't have their first house bought for them by their parents, and many perceive having to do so for their children if they want to get on the property ladder a major issue they aren't desperately happy with.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
I cannot understand the Lib Dems' position for these elections. Their recent PPB seemed to focus entirely on Brexit. Whilst that is a USP for them, I doubt many people will be changing their vote for the locals on the strength of it - after all, the Lib Dems have been the 'proper' remain party for a couple of years now.
What the Lib Dems need is to shout out their values and what the party can offer the country - and there is a saleable product there. Instead, they're navel-gazing on an area that won't change votes.
Cable is an absolute disaster.
I've delivered 5 different Lib Dem leaflets for the candidates in our two main local target wards during the past few weeks and I'll be delivering another one tomorrow. Not a single one of those leaflets have made any mention of Brexit - and our candidates are very much focused on the local issues for these elections.
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
The introduction of All Women Shortlists has been a disgrace since it first happened in the mid-1990s. I live in the key marginal of Norwich North - but will not vote for a gender vetted Labour candidate.
We must be neighbours! In order to address the problem of gender inequality and make parliament look just like we do-about a 50-50 gender split,Labour chose the tool of all-women shortlists to achieve the goal of gender equality which a Corbyn government would be with great candidates like Karen a 50-50 gender split. What's your next excuse?
When unemployment in the Welsh valleys (and other places) was high and the jobs were elsewhere, people migrated to get a better life (ie employment). Not possible for all of course, but those that are in the best position as a group so to do are precisely the twenty somethings out of full time education. Why not move to an area of better affordability within the UK if a house is so important?
Why do people not like the idea of having to choose between home ownership and living near their family, friends, and where they grew up? A decision the last generation didn't have to make. Hmm...
Of course, many do move. London is a net importer of 20-somethings but a net exporter of 30-somethings, precisely the age when people start putting down serious roots and have to decide between home ownership and location. And recent trends in commuter towns and other (cheaper) cities show these people take their Labour voting with them. Something about finding they can't live and work in London like the last generation did doesn't sit well with them.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
Yes, of course. But I do find it a tad ironic from my geographical position that the same sort of life questions are now being asked of Londoners as were asked of other parts of the country for decades (if for different economic reasons). We have few on here pointing out how much they enjoy their "progressive and open" (I paraphrase slightly) city. Fair enough, crack on, good luck and all that, the obverse of that is the competition for accommodation. We should build more sure, but it seems a touch Sisyphean as long as there's an effective open door to huge numbers of people.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!
The average PROPERTY is worth a milion in those boroughs but that average includes thousands of ex and current social housing. You won't get a house for a £1m - maybe not even a nice one bed flat in some areas.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
ROFL
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?
Broader society has to grip the problem of the label "woman" - is it about your life experiences (so that trans-women frequently fall outside it) or something else.
The problem facing all women shortlists is a bit different. All-women shortlists were proposed on the basis that women were: 1. Under-represented in Parliament; 2. Discriminated against in wider society; 3. Discriminated against in selection processes; 4. Had different/valuable skills to bring to parliament.
As time has gone on, we now have to ask which and what to what extent all of those things are true (and/or are shared by trans-women).
another increasing Tory lead....what if this is more like 2015 where the tories end up with a 7% lead?
Windrush seems to have absolutely no impact.
More likely a beneficial impact on the Conservatives. Why Labour thought it would be fruitful to bang on about an immigration issue for weeks before an election, rather than on the economic and austerity issues on which they actually do have public sympathy, I have no idea. It is even making me rethink my assessment of Diane Abbott as a political genius!
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?
It will be before too long anyway. The legislation has a sunset clause of 2030. It was originally due to expire in 2015 but Harriet Harman extended it in one of the last Acts of the 2005-10 parliament.
It starts well enough but meanders into a rant about general practice. One odd thing though is the figures for specialities show women favour anaethesia over surgery -- but can this be due to antisocial hours? Am I missing something here? Don't anaesthetists and surgeons operate together or do anaesthetists change shifts halfway through long operations? If the hours are the same then there must be some other explanation.
Surgery isn't just about the bit in the operating theatre. You (or your junior) generally see the patients before and after.
There are lots of issues around sex and specialty selection. We've just submitting a research paper on this topic, but not accepted so I can't share yet. Meanwhile, there's useful background in:
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
The introduction of All Women Shortlists has been a disgrace since it first happened in the mid-1990s. I live in the key marginal of Norwich North - but will not vote for a gender vetted Labour candidate.
We must be neighbours! In order to address the problem of gender inequality and make parliament look just like we do-about a 50-50 gender split,Labour chose the tool of all-women shortlists to achieve the goal of gender equality which a Corbyn government would be with great candidates like Karen a 50-50 gender split. What's your next excuse?
I am not sure that any excuse arises. I have never been persuaded that a 50-50 gender split is desirable for its own sake . I really could not give a damn as to the candidate's gender but will not be told that I can ONLY have a woman candidate. Voters deserve to be presented with the best candidate available - regardless of gender.On the same basis , I am strongly opposed to All -Black Shortlists - All -Gay Shortlists - and indeed All - Paedophile Shortlists. I shall vote Labour on Thursday but will be spoiling my ballot paper at the General Election - and have persuaded three other voters to do likewise.
This is urgent. Labour won’t make gains on Thursday unless more of you who want a socialist society volunteer to come and canvass. SIGN UP >> http://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/events …
Young Jones having another attack of the Vapours.
Good, hopefully we will see many of those who want a 'socialist society' tramping the streets of Wandsworth, Westminster and Chelsea where I am sure the swing voters in their expensive houses in central London will be convinced by their preaching Marxism on the doorstep
The swing voters in nice houses in London expected their children to be on track for the same when they graduated from uni and started working. The discovery that isn't possible has come as a rude shock, and the Tories shouldn't underestimate the appeal of a major change when the family's financial security or lifestyle is threatened.
The AVERAGE house in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea is worth over a million and to afford to rent privately there you need close to a six figure salary and most can easily afford to buy their children a flat if needed. Nobody in that part of London who does not rely on benefits is facing a threat to their financial security other than from high taxing Labour councils and governments!
People in K&C didn't have their first house bought for them by their parents, and many perceive having to do so for their children if they want to get on the property ladder a major issue they aren't desperately happy with.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
When unemployment in the Welsh valleys (and other places) was high and the jobs were elsewhere, people migrated to get a better life (ie employment). Not possible for all of course, but those that are in the best position as a group so to do are precisely the twenty somethings out of full time education. Why not move to an area of better affordability within the UK if a house is so important?
Why do people not like the idea of having to choose between home ownership and living near their family, friends, and where they grew up? A decision the last generation didn't have to make. Hmm...
You don't like it - tough. You cannot buck the market .
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?
Indeed. Better to work with organisations like 50/50 Parliament who are encouraging good women to stand, rather than the outdated reliance on quotas and AWS.
Not sure there will be much public sympathy to foreign students.
In any case - Theresa May has been resolute in her view that she wants to reduce foreign student numbers coming to the country. This is a feature not a bug.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
ROFL
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
ROFL
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
Poverty is less than £320 a week. 60% of average earnings. It is a measure of inequality not destitution.
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.
Not sure there will be much public sympathy to foreign students.
In any case - Theresa May has been resolute in her view that she wants to reduce foreign student numbers coming to the country. This is a feature not a bug.
Her opposition to foreign students is one of her more foolish standpoints. If the authorities concerntrated on the standards of the places such students attended, I’d be more sympathetic.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
ROFL
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.
likewise I'd warn generally that assuming people who vote Labour in their 20s will do so in their 50s has a poor track record
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
ROFL
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.
Except it was the voters outside London who voted Leave largely to end free movement
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
ROFL
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
Poverty is less than £320 a week. 60% of average earnings. It is a measure of inequality not destitution.
Does that not also depend on the size of a household? A single person earning £320 a week does not strike me as poor - particularly if there are no dependants and no mortgage to pay.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I cannot understand the Lib Dems' position for these elections. Their recent PPB seemed to focus entirely on Brexit. Whilst that is a USP for them, I doubt many people will be changing their vote for the locals on the strength of it - after all, the Lib Dems have been the 'proper' remain party for a couple of years now.
What the Lib Dems need is to shout out their values and what the party can offer the country - and there is a saleable product there. Instead, they're navel-gazing on an area that won't change votes.
Cable is an absolute disaster.
I've delivered 5 different Lib Dem leaflets for the candidates in our two main local target wards during the past few weeks and I'll be delivering another one tomorrow. Not a single one of those leaflets have made any mention of Brexit - and our candidates are very much focused on the local issues for these elections.
No new houses and flats? Protect our greenbelt? Tory failure on potholes? etc
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
ROFL
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.
likewise I'd warn generally that assuming people who vote Labour in their 20s will do so in their 50s has a poor track record
Indeed. Good thing I've not made that assumption or argument at any point. My argument is that people in their 40s-50s are more likely to vote Labour if they see their children being priced out of the area they brought them up in.
Not sure there will be much public sympathy to foreign students.
In any case - Theresa May has been resolute in her view that she wants to reduce foreign student numbers coming to the country. This is a feature not a bug.
Her opposition to foreign students is one of her more foolish standpoints. If the authorities concerntrated on the standards of the places such students attended, I’d be more sympathetic.
In policy terms it's an absolute disaster, but I suspect it is quite a popular stance amongst conservative members/voters.
Foreigners + young people + they don't speak english well enough (allegedly) ticks the boxes for irritating the Daily Express/Mail very nicely.
OT. cyclefree. Thanks for your interesting comment on my cafe owner friend. You're more compassionate than the average PBer. Out of interest one piece of information that I didn't know when I wrote that letter is that he had produced a work permit but it was a fake. One readily available on the internet apparently and whether because it was convincing or he was too inexperienced to know the difference I don't know but £15,000 is a big price to pay for a very honest mistake.
Thank you. That does sound very unfortunate for your friend. It does seem to me that that sort of a fine is very large and not very sensible. Perhaps a smaller fine or a warning might have been better.
The trouble is that common-sense and reasonable judgment are not very evident amongst our bureaucrats, often because they are hobbled by the rules or by silly targets.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?
because all the sensible people have moved to the countryside ?
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?
Well if Labour win Kensington and Chelsea on Thursday I will admit I was wrong, that is a big if however
Comments
of engineering.
Want any treatment from me?
I’ll say nothing on the Cliff Richard case until the ruling, because I don’t want Mike OGH to get sued.
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to'
"Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
But as you say, IR35 closed that loophole that many IT consultants exploited.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html
A fantastic example to the next generation of allowing a policy to be defined by your political opponents, and failing to put enough of your own people up to defend it.
What a shitty country this has become.
Most of them wont even vote - telling people you voted is far more important.
See Venezuela for details.
If I had an 18 year old kid now, I’d suggest that they either go to a Redbrick/Ivyleague uni or start an apprenticeship in law / finance / IT at 18. Spending three years getting £50k in debt for minimal career advancement is pointless financially, even if it’s great fun at the time.
Worth watching for the last 10 minutes in which they dissect a bunch of trademark Lib Dem bar charts.
I just listen to my GP mate who is pissed off having to cover for the female half of his practice.
On the other hand if ladies head off to GP then the pay gap is going to be something massive since consultants get the big salaries
But the politicians loved the reflected glory from actors and, of course, no senior politician had actors in the family
https://twitter.com/AEI/status/937380169375010816
Here's a warm-up:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/991283690654355457
Dont forget that each applicant applies to 4 Med Schools, and a fair number of the rejects apply again the following year. Overall the success rate for school leavers meeting the academic threshold get in is about 75%. Presumably some of the other 25% are not suitable for non academic reasons.
Brexit is an issue for general not local elections
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
Housing affordability ratios in London have trebled in the last 20 years. There is a major generational difference about the ability to get on and climb the housing ladder, and that bothers parents who've made it as well as millennials who can't.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/17/average-house-price-times-annual-salary-official-figures-ons
it's also fairly self policing since only people with a chance of getting the higher grades in technical subjects are likely to apply
so it's still fairly clear that there are more than enough people capable of being doctors and we haven't been recruiting enough of them, especially blokes.
Perhaps the time for all-women shortlists is over?
There are some good access to Medicine foundation courses for those who have not got the grades.
Overall the problem is retention. Training is both expensive and prolonged, but in both Medicine and Nursing the atrition rates are scary.
When unemployment in the Welsh valleys (and other places) was high and the jobs were elsewhere, people migrated to get a better life (ie employment). Not possible for all of course, but those that are in the best position as a group so to do are precisely the twenty somethings out of full time education. Why not move to an area of better affordability within the UK if a house is so important?
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
What's your next excuse?
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
Yes, of course. But I do find it a tad ironic from my geographical position that the same sort of life questions are now being asked of Londoners as were asked of other parts of the country for decades (if for different economic reasons). We have few on here pointing out how much they enjoy their "progressive and open" (I paraphrase slightly) city. Fair enough, crack on, good luck and all that, the obverse of that is the competition for accommodation. We should build more sure, but it seems a touch Sisyphean as long as there's an effective open door to huge numbers of people.
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
The problem facing all women shortlists is a bit different. All-women shortlists were proposed on the basis that women were:
1. Under-represented in Parliament;
2. Discriminated against in wider society;
3. Discriminated against in selection processes;
4. Had different/valuable skills to bring to parliament.
As time has gone on, we now have to ask which and what to what extent all of those things are true (and/or are shared by trans-women).
There are lots of issues around sex and specialty selection. We've just submitting a research paper on this topic, but not accepted so I can't share yet. Meanwhile, there's useful background in:
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0413-5 "Sex differences in medico-legal action against doctors: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-018-1178-2 "Passing MRCP (UK) PACES: a cross-sectional study examining the performance of doctors by sex and country"
And on the topic of giving visas to overseas doctors:
https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-017-0903-6 "Prevalence of GMC performance assessments in the United Kingdom: a retrospective cohort analysis by country of medical qualification"
All against a backdrop of huge shortages in many healthcare professions.
I shall vote Labour on Thursday but will be spoiling my ballot paper at the General Election - and have persuaded three other voters to do likewise.
In any case - Theresa May has been resolute in her view that she wants to reduce foreign student numbers coming to the country. This is a feature not a bug.
"All-PBer shortlists are where all the candidates have posted at least one message to PB within the last electoral cycle."
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
Nabavi, Herdson, JohnO (but NOT TSE) your time has come!
#ermine
Foreigners + young people + they don't speak english well enough (allegedly) ticks the boxes for irritating the Daily Express/Mail very nicely.
The trouble is that common-sense and reasonable judgment are not very evident amongst our bureaucrats, often because they are hobbled by the rules or by silly targets.
I hope your friend is doing well, now, though.
Eddie Izzard's non-political career? Phenomenally successful - get out of your political geek bubble, Alan.