colhint

good post Drat. Is there a way of finding out the tax avoiding companies, to try to avoid them. Is there an alternative to google that pays it uk tax for example.

Perhaps you should avoid details and just stick to paint and pictures. The Guardian puts the big increase in Labour numbers down to the forming of the coalition in May, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/labour-party-record-surge-membership So when Ed became their Leader, Labour had a membership of 193,000 Now they have a membership of 190,000. All these figures are in the Appendix to the Library document I must say that's some spin to claim the membership is rising. Did you do some work for George Osborne, to convince us we got a 50% discount on the EU increase aswell.

ok I'll take your claim that its leveled out to be the true one then.

So which of your statements are true. 1. Its on the rise 2 It rose in 2010 and has leveled out 3 an insignificant drop in 2012 and back to where it was 4 listening to the press you would think its dropping 5 Its risen by 2000 this year. You have claimed all to be the case

I'd say I wasn't the one nit picking. The earlier claim that Labour membership was on the rise, Is quite clearly false. It was not I who compared it to other parties, or taking it in any context whatsoever. I just pointed out the error So it's not rising at all then As compared to the other major parties then the membership of the Labour party is significantly healthier than the others. Now (before the idiocy of deflection and ahhh but comes from .....) if you then take that into context the membership certainly is not showing a unhapiness with the leadership. Agreed? Not disagreeing with your evaluation. Just pointing out the claim that membership is rising, is a false claim. Nit and picking are waiting at the door - they have received an invite :-) Nit picking and ignoring the facts What facts?

So it's not rising at all then As compared to the other major parties then the membership of the Labour party is significantly healthier than the others. Now (before the idiocy of deflection and ahhh but comes from .....) if you then take that into context the membership certainly is not showing a unhapiness with the leadership. Agreed? Not disagreeing with your evaluation. Just pointing out the claim that membership is rising, is a false claim.

So it's not rising at all then

Are you sure Labour membership is up? According to the House of Commons Library documents, Its been at its lowest level since 1928, save for one blip after Blair. Then remained at that level ever since. I'm not sure how to link it as its a download doc

Its seems as though Cameron was right on this Juncker chap then. Well whether he was right or not, Juncker, it appears, signed off a lot of these corporate tax avoidance schemes in Luxembourg, and now is the Leader of the EU. I should imagine that will annoy the French and Germans http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/06/luxembourg-jean-claude-juncker-pressure-tax-deals

I think I read that they have had 8 players who have played every game this season. Including the back 4. The same back four for every game. I don't think we have put the same back four out for two games running, maybe the first 2 games.

our influence on CAP is miniscule compared to the French. We have Banking, the Germans have Manufacturing and the French Have Agriculture. That's the way the EU works

I don't think that's true Pete, either directly or indirectly, about 80% of grants come from CAP. So whoever is in government in the uk makes very little difference

I think we are too one dimensional, it appears the same tactics and formation regardless who we are playing. The middle quincunx is not fluid enough. It may have worked at Agincourt and Cressy but it doesn't appear to work in the premier league.

That haunted me for a long time. It was the first piece of news I was really bothered about, or understood as a kid. They didn't even show Tingha and Tucker, which Is what I was waiting for.

Can't you see alL eu nations break the rules when it suits them, with no comeback. I can think of the French Illegally banning our beef years after BSE, and also outright proping up Airfrance. And are the Germans not just started building 4 new coal powered energy plants to run on brown coal, which is pretty much against what they signed up to.

Nah I think English football is more like old Soviet communism Doesn't work very well, not very good, the good ones are in short supply, Its overpriced for what it is, and the majority of the money goes to the workers.

I think the downside to all this is, it probably needs discussing. Whether it works or not, I have no idea. But I doubt anyone in Parliament will raise it, and it'll be kicked into the long grass. So many disabled will stay unemployed

Yes he does, nobody has suggested otherwise but that doesn't make it in any way more acceptable and besides the criticism I've seen has been directed at the individual rather than his party and rightly so. I'm sure Milliband and the shadow cabinet have been saying it is a return to the nasty Tories since the news broke, not just blaming the individual

You do realize that the document that you linked is a guidance note on how the NMW legislation actually applies - it was intended to help individuals and organisations [sic] understand how the national minimum wage applies in relation to what is often known as ‘therapeutic work’. It was not a proposal or something that the Labour government 'tabled'/'put forward'. Certainly I do. You do realise the document was authorised by the Labour government and backed by Scope, Mencap and the TUC. What Freud said was in response to a question. You do realise It was not a proposal or something that the Tory Government tabled/put forward.

yes it does. And didn't Anne Begg backtrack on Sky news when told of the context? And didn't the Adam smith institute come out and support him?

I haven't said anything about Tories, just why is a big issue now, not when it was put forward some years ago? In my opinion it's either right or wrong. Not right when I'm in power but wrong when I'm in opposition.

About this minimum wage for disabled, Isn't this a bit of a volte face from the Labour party, seeing as this was tabled in 2003, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070603164510/http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file11883.pdf quoting and the national minimum wage would not apply (see Paragraph 17) Now it's a very long report and link, so open it if you want. It was recognising that in some circumstances it would be difficult to employ some disabled people . A few quotes being who do various activities such as packing and assembly“ can“pay varying amounts up to £20 per week there would probably not be an employer/worker relationship” and therefore “the national minimum wage would not apply Patricia Hewitt was Secretary of State, Scope, Mencap and the TUC were all consulted on this. So why now are they calling for someone to be sacked

you've just made that up. Now if you had said 14.73% or 15.28% I would have taken it as Gospel.

only one decimal place?

I think the reason is 4 fold, First, because for a long time it was associated with the BNP. and most moderate people found them abhorrent. Secondly, It appeared that if you raised concern, people often just called you a racist, Third is as Tony mentioned, times are tough Fourth, with the rise of UKIP people may think something might be done about it. These are in no particular priority.