bridge too far

wardrobe

As in 'Care in the .....'?

crumble

turnover

drip

soya

parlour

Which is why I said that the reporting of the poll was not as straightforward as the poll's questions. I did the poll. I don't think YouGov is anything other than independent but I can't say the same about Sky News (owned by whom, remind me). Indeed, the director of YouGov was one of those giving an opinion in the Observer piece. NetMums were very much in favour of the Conservatives in the run-up to the election. Given that mothers are likely to be more severely affected by the cuts than any other section of society, I bet that won't be the case for long. However, you're right - NetMums isn't representative or scientific. Nor are any of the think-tanks interviewed for that piece.

oil

Theatre programmes - I just can't bring myself to throw them away. Nothing else (except for husbands but then I don't keep them but, rather, discard them when they've reached their sell-by dates )

In that article there were comments from: Andrew Haldenby, director of the centre-right thinktank Reform, Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator magazine Neil O'Brien, director of the centre-right Policy Exchange as well as from: Tim Horton, research director at the Fabian Society the thinktank Demos, whose director is former Labour MP and Treasury minister Kitty Ussher Fran Bennett and Kate Green – former directors of the Child Poverty Action Group and finally - from someone not aligned to either 'side': John Hills, professor of social policy at the London School of Economics That seems fairly balanced to me. The article wasn't setting out a point of view but, rather, asking people from left wing and right wing organisations for their points of view. But I guess that's what a serious paper does. I did one of the YouGov polls recently on the subject of Child Benefit cuts. The questions were not as straightforward as the Sky News item suggests. Sky News - second only to the Morning Star eh

Accepted - thank you

Here's a look at what the IMF said: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/economic_policy_1 Now the Economist is hardly the vessel of the lefties is it Here's an excerpt: "But the push for short-term austerity seems unnecessary and unwise. Britain's fiscal credibility was not in doubt, at least as far as bond markets were concerned. "

No, fair and balanced because it examines both parties' policies, criticises and praises various elements of those policies, and seeks the views of representatives of both right and left wing think tanks. But perhaps you didn't bother to read the article?

A very fair and balanced piece in the Observer today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/10/benefit-cuts-fairness-george-osborne Oh and FAO Benjii - comments from the right are OK but comments from the left are 'petty personal snipes', eh? One rule for them and one for us apparently.

Although, of course, GO (who was third choice for Shadow Chancellor) had no experience whatsoever in government until now. Whereas AJ has huge experience in government as SoS for a number of departments. If I were Georgie boy, I'd be quaking in my shoes right now

koala bear

I'm not too sure that GO's degree in History is any more relevant to the job than AJ's previous life as a postman. Although GO has admitted he left the arrangement of the family mortgage to his wife The received wisdom in Westminster is that AJ is a formidable opponent. It will be fun to watch the goings-on in the next few weeks.

jocks

You know what? Sometimes I think either my ability to express myself is waning or other people only read half a post these days. I've never said that I think it's wrong to cut Child Benefit for the super wealthy. It's the anomalies I dislike so much. How can it be right to get Child Benefit if your family receives c £80K via two earners but to lose it if your family earns £43K via one earner? How can it be right for a parent's caring responsibilites no longer to be recognised for future state pension entitlement. How can it be right for a man, paying maintenance to his first family, to cause his new partner to lose out on Child Benefit for the children from her first family for whom he has no legal or fiscal responsibility. It's the illogicality of it all that gets my goat. I don't know why it was never taken further, but in a link to the history of Child Benefit that I provided a few pages ago, it was recorded that Gordon Brown did indeed look at reintroducing tax allowances for families with children and then adding the income from Child Benefit for taable purposes. I don't know why it didn't happen. I think this whole business could be addressed better through taxation - another stealth tax if you will.

So presumably you think state pensions shouldn't be dished out to everybody as well? How would you overcome the problem of a mother / father staying at home to look after the children, but no longer receiving Child Benefit, thereby losing a lot of their state pension because their caring role would no longer be recognised if their entitlement to Child Benefit was abolished?

LOL - I put this to Mr TF who is, as some of you know, a Skate. He said 'no way - we'll buy Wycombe Wanderers instead' Best fans in the world, eh?

I'll quickly make 2 points Lord D. 1. To many people living in London and the South East, £40K isn't much to raise a family on. Not when a half-decent 3 bed semi costs upwards of £300K. Even rent for such a house would be just shy of £900 a month. I know it's cheaper in Southampton and this is reflected int salaries there. But it doesn't get away from the salient point that most people use regional variations in wages to deal with regional variations in costs. Remember, these families may have already committed to this in the expectation that the child benefit wouldn't be cut (as indicated by the Conservatives pre-election). 2. It's the government itself that has stated that means testing is too expensive to administer and that the cost of such administration would wipe out a lot of the 'gains' of the cuts in Child Benefit. If they did this, having thought it through, then it shows just how dumb and out of touch with the real world they really are.

toledo

I seriously wouldn't know what to do with that sort of money. I really wouldn't. Wouldn't it earn something like £8K a day in interest? I could probably manage to plan how to spend £5m but after that I think I'd struggle.