bridge too far

It's not just schools forking out for this stuff. My SiL teacher regularly buys stuff (books, PE kit etc.) for the more disadvantaged children in his class in what is a fairly affluent area with pockets of real rural poverty.

From an admittedly biased source, but this is a view about the 'selection' of undecided voters for QT last night http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-that-question-time-audience/

Indeed, my 6 yo grandson was only saying yesterday how he wished he could go up chimneys or collect the debris from underneath the weaving machines

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32537425

But it IS the government's job to ensure that people aren't exploited and that tax payers aren't subsidising employers by having to underwrite wages with Working Tax Credits etc.

Is this a poll on who did best tonight? If so, I'm surprised because I thought Clegg did better than that!

Once upon a time, workers undertook what used to be called seasonal work in the knowledge that when the season was over their work would finish. But they knew exactly how much they would earn and for how long. Similarly students did holiday work (often in retail) to cover for permanent staff who were on leave. My own granddaughter worked for Boots from the age of 18 during her school and university holidays. Both Boots and my granddaughter knew exactly where they stood with this arrangement. This is a whole different ball game from employers putting people on zero hours contracts whereby the workers have no idea how many hours they'll work or how much they'll take home if anything. And whereby the employer can decide to give out no work at all but forbid the worker for working for anyone else.

Bloody bottle for 'long term economic plan' and a pub load for 'my severely disabled son'.

A better analogy would have been to compare the national economy to any big busisness (like the banks and Tesco that makes millions in losses). Comes back to leverage again.

At least he's answering the questions rather than falling back on well rehearsed mantras that don't actually address the points raised.

It's all about leverage. You should read that Paul Krugman link posted yesterday or the day before. It explains it all well. He's twisting the facts to suit his case even though the debt is larger now than it ever has been. They've borrowed more in 5 years than all the previous Labour administrations put together.

Yep we are.

As much use as a chocolate teapot

Why does a government need a law to bind its own Chancellor to such acts? I think it was Robert Peston who pointed out that the law would be over-ridden if there was, say, another financial crisis and that there is nothing to stop the next government passing another law to override this law! Crazy!

That's probably because lefties are more intelligent http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

The problem here is the comparatively large number of new housing estates. Once upon a time, the developers would have to pay a Section 106 to help pay for infrastructure such as roads AND schools. That doesn't seem to happen so much nowadays. My grandson's infant school had to build extra classrooms to cope with the change from a one form to two form intake because of a huge (and pricey) development nearby. The local authority here seems to be reactive, only providing extra spaces after the event. At secondary level there are children being sent out of county, but the secondary problem is exacerbated by this council's dedication to selective education. Almost all of Buckinghamshire's senior pupils have to get on a bus to go miles away from their homes. Bloody crazy!

Each school should be able to let you know what their admissions criteria are and in what order. I think you'll find with faith based schools that a letter from that faith's priest (or whatever) is needed to prove REGULAR attendance as a starter. (That's what happened when my daughter was looking to have her daughter admitted to the town's CofE primary). Another high priority would be looked-after children and children with special needs. Then would come siblings attending and THEN would come catchment. But maybe schools are different in different areas. My other daughter has just moved house but her son is unable to move into the nearest school mid-term as there are no places so he has to trek to the other side of town to his current school. He's unlikely to be able to move to this nearest school in September either.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/follow-george-orwells-road-wigan-5583390#ICID=sharebar_facebook

And a way needs to be found to discourage land-banking.

I think that part of the plan is that the rental history of the property be disclosed to a potential tenant so that they can negotiate with the landlord. It would be obvious to the potential tenant if the landlord had upped the rent unfairly.

I am! Sorry But, as I said, that article was written 5 years ago so I have no doubt that even 'worth up to' would read 'exceeds' today. And CB Fry's research backs me up!

Which is more than can be said for your comprehension skills! If it was worth just under £2m (which is what I said, not 'worth up to') 5 years ago (In London) you bet it's worth way more than £2m now. Here's his modest pile in Oxfordshire Given that a 5 bed new house on an estate in nearby Witney sells for £750K I think you can see the worth of his country house in a very desirable rural spot EDIT - for some reason I can't post the image. Just google David Cameron's house, Dean, Oxfordshire

His London home was valued at just under £2m 5 years ago so you can bet your bottom dollar it's over £2m now. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cameron-millions-family-fortunes-tories-206432 His house in Dean, Oxfordshire would sell for close on £2m (if not more). I know his house and the immediate environs well as I used to be one of his constituents.

So Cameron wouldn't have to pay the tax? I know his wife's company allegedly off-shores its profits but are you saying Cameron avoids tax too? Surely not!

Absolutely right. Another thing worth thinking about is the 'appeal' of the charities. Any charity supporting children and / or animals is likely to get a lot more in donations than, say, charities supporting mental health because they are perceived as having more kerb appeal. Somehow the less popular charities need supporting somehow