colhint

Sorry, I didnt get that far, someone came to the door. I guess there would be the other benefits, but it was a long winded form and I aint got the time to do it again

I have just checked and it appears there would be no working tax credits if you earned £35k,

I think this is one of the few times when this could be tackled. If any party tried it in boom years the other parties, regardless of whether they thought it was right or not, would just object to it as a vote catcher.

So I am trying to imagine what your circumstances would have to be to qualify for more than £26,000 pa.

you wouldn't be the first, done it loads of times myself.

As for myself I dont think any of the front runners will get it. I think Ed will stay in place for a while and then a new name will appear

so where does the figure come from then?

I dont know this. Is this equivalent to £26000 gross or net pay. If it is net wouldn't that mean that it is the equivalent to someone earning about £35k

would be funny if Balotelli gets off scot free and Harry gets 3 years

ok I hate, well not hate, but do dislike him.

I dislike him because he changed labour from what it stood for to what it is now. Not that I am a Labour supporter at all. But at least there was an alternative.

I dislike him because He pretty much ignored Nato along with bush, and thousands died

I dislike him because he said if no wmd are found thats the end of it

I dislike him because he let Campbell issue the 45 minute warning, as if that was true.

I dislike him because he let 1,000s of innocent people die

I dislike him because he wants to keep David Kelly's suicide secret for 70 years (a civil servants suicide is amongst the top secrets this country has)

I dislike him because he spent so much money for so little improvement to the country (its a bit like liverpool spending £35m on Carroll)

I dislike him because he let Mandleson, who didn't know how to fill in a mortgage application become minister for trade

I dislike him because he allowed our population to grow unchecked, without doing anything about the infrastructure (this is not a race issue, its because we are one of the most densely populated counties in Europe)

I dislike him because he let John Prescot who couldn't string a sentence together, and as far as I am aware, the only politician to punch a member of the public hold senior office.

I dislike him quite a lot really

I

dollars usually work for me, wherever I have been

systems

Shampoo is now an organic hair cleansing system

Diary advanced time management system

Oil Engine lubrication system

rght im off to try my new one handed self gratification system

My Erdington Gp's appontment system! :evil:

The system does not favour the working man! Again I have just phoned to get an appointment and failed.

Only one night a week do they have a late night appointment session and even then the latest is 18:30, when I ring up to get that one its always gone even if I ring as it opens. I explain that I dont finish work until half 5 and have to get there still.

They told me that they do Saturday mornings and after an hour waiting in the cold I find there are only 2 appointments alloted for this and even if I managed to get the 2nd of those I have to wait an hour. Its hit and miss if you get one of those.

I pay full national insurance and for my presecriptions yet the appointment system favours those unfortunate (or in this case fortunate) enough not to work! :evil:

My GP annoys me. Why can you only book up to 48 hours in advance??? Then when you do ring up you get told there are no appointments in that time frame.

I do not have a cold, the ailment will not disappear in 48 hours so make me an effing appointment!!!!

isnt it something the last government brought in to do with waiting times. I think TB was questioned about it on BBC news. Apparantly the GP's get penalities if there are too many people waiting over 48 hrs. So they took the decision that they have enough long term patients who need repeat appointments, it is too much of a risk to book people in over 48 hrs. Its cheaper to get them to get them to keep phoning up to get an available appointment within that time. No penalties then

bloody well done to you all

Kate Middleton will be wearing 5 designer outfits on Christmas day, all paid for by us tax payers.

She visited a homeless charity during the week. There was me thinking she'd wear one and give the money from the other 4 to people that are dying on the streets hungry in this day and age.

I'll think you will find any outfit she wears will be provided free by the British designer. The pictures will be shown all over the world. Many wealthy customers will decide if they like the outfit and ask for ones similar. This will in turn create more employment in the fashion industry here, which is quite big already.

Whatever people think of Diana she was the biggest advertising the uk fashion industry had. It boomed whilst she was alive.

In blokes terms it would have been the same as Messi, Tom Cruise and David Beckham all driving british cars, saying how good they are and doing it free

not often I say this but I entirely agree with Ian. Happy Christmas

have a great Christmas everyone

The thing is with veal is because people choose not to eat it, whats the point of keeping a male cow. Female, fine spend money on food injectons etc, because it will supply you an income from the milk and then beef when the milk has gone. But the male cow can only give beef, its not worth the cost of feeding, vets bills and injections before it is old enough to supply enough meat, or to satisfy the consumers demand that it has had a happy life. If people ate veal it would live a little longer, strange as that sounds

enough money

I dont know this. If you are a union member, and a member of the labour party, could you have 2 votes?

yeah theres ebay and porn

No that was satan who let him get 18 holes in one. He knew no one would believe him

Coll - what a flawed argument. You are using the rules of PR, something that the Tory party are very much against, as your base rule.

It's well known that the last set of boundary changes were actually in Tory party favour if people retained the same voting habits. The new boundary changes and the reductions in the number of MP's certainly favour the Tory party, hence their eagerness to go back on their previous statements about protection of civil liberties and parliamentary setup.

2010 changes

As we have the flawed system in the UK of the first past the post aggregate votes are meaningless

Ian i agree. The fptp system is wrong, I was trying to use something to balance the previous post.

Oh dear oh dear you do make me laugh. In the grand scheme of things complaining that the electoral sysstem is unfair to the Tories is superb. First past the post unfair to the Toires...?!

Here it is in black and white.

2010 GE results:

Conservative 307 10,726,614 ( voters )

Liberal Democrat 57 6,836,824 ( voters)

From this we can clearly see that nearly 7 million people voted for the Fib-Dems yet their voters only got to see 57 of their MPs represented in Parliment

Compare that to the Tories.

10.7 Million voters 3 0 7 MPS in Parliament.

You have the arrogance and audacity to say thats its the Tories who are hard done by - classic.

Perhaps you might prefer a fairer form of Voting, maybe a more proportional representation voting system....??!!

I don't know where to start with that.

Lets take my arrogance and audacity first.

Why on earth would you think I am either of the two when I just asked if you were sure of your facts. In fact the only 3 words I used were "are you sure". Could I ask how you think I was being arrogant or audacious?

It does bother me this point

Secondly I quoted and linked from independant sources who both stated that it is much easier for labour to win than Conservatives.

Thirdly I thought you were discussing boundary changes not PR, well I think you were when i read your post.

Fourth You challenged Richard on who made those changes and I pointed you in the direction of the UK polling report and factcheck, just so you could be certain.

Fifth, why did you bring the Lib Dems into this, when you were arguing who made changes the Tory or Labour?

sixth why, when presenting your case did you omit Labours statistics?

Just so we can have some balance in your post I will add the Labour figure as well.

Conservatives 10.7 m votes for 306 mp's which equates to 35000 votes for every MP

Labour 806m votes for 258 mp's which equates to 33300 votes for every mp.

Surely you can see the Conservatives need an extra 1700 votes per mp

Labour Goverment made the changes are you sure about that? where is your source.

Interesting very interesting, it looks you failed to mention that the boundary reforms made it a lot harder for Labour to win a majority.

Wasn't it the Boundary Commission that recommend boundary changes, Labour were actually adversely affected by those introduced for the 2010 GE.

Not only have you failed to grasp the other main factors,but you are completely wrong about the point you made - you must be a Tory.

Are you sure?

factcheck

Research by the independent House of Commons Library states: “Academics have noted for some time that the UK electoral system appears to have become biased against the Conservatives in the last couple of decades.” It’s all down to a mix of abstention, geography, constituencies of unequal size and competition from smaller parties.

The library however points to research by academics at the Universities of Plymouth and Bristol whose overall conclusion is that the creation of more equal constituencies would help with reducing the bias against the Tories but, crucially, “it would not assist with the other factors in play”.

uk polling report

Despite the boundary changes you will probably have noticed that the electoral boundaries continue to display a “bias” towards the Labour party. It is far easier for Labour to secure a majority in the House of Commons than it is for the Conservatives. If Labour lead in the vote they will secure an overall majority, if the parties are neck and neck then Labour will be by far the largest party. In contrast, depending on how well the Liberal Democrats do, the Conservatives need to be in the region of 9 or 10 percent ahead in the polls to secure an overall majorty.

67000 jobs were lost in the public sector over the last 3 months. 5000 were created in the private sector. So much for Osbournes assertion that the private sector would pick up the slack. Another huge fail.

I think the key word here is decreased. Thats what it says. It doesnt say redundancies.

An organisation that employs 6m people, And if you assume a 40 year working life (20yrs to 60yrs). Wouldnt that make 150,000 people at each age between 20 and 60 roughly. If thats the case wouldn't 150,000 retire each year. So in 3 months wouldn't you expect 37500 to retire. Now I don't know how many people just left to do another job.