bridge too far

I thought he was half cut too!

An excellent article: #access_token=AAADWQ6323IoBAGniLrRRv3yMVqlNN6PxbQwMlHC3KSWl5fd7Fq67XbOqKzrSS4bzsZCoeQOfkTZAbU0X2ElGbdYpg9f9PtuNlEzszxZAQZDZD&expires_in=6957"]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/against-george-osbornes-war-on-the-poor-and-the-vile-stupidity-of-his-workers-vs-shirkers-narrative-8397330.html?fb_action_ids=4834589552975&fb_action_types=the-independent%3Astrongly_agree&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%224834589552975%22%3A383591741725308}&action_type_map={%224834589552975%22%3A%22the-independent%3Astrongly_agree%22}&action_ref_map=[]#access_token=AAADWQ6323IoBAGniLrRRv3yMVqlNN6PxbQwMlHC3KSWl5fd7Fq67XbOqKzrSS4bzsZCoeQOfkTZAbU0X2ElGbdYpg9f9PtuNlEzszxZAQZDZD&expires_in=6957 "Today, Labour unveils plans that move towards German-style rent controls. If combined with a council house building programme – creating jobs and stimulating the economy – the £21bn wasted on housing benefit (which should be renamed “landlord subsidy”) would be reduced. Similarly, the number of working families receiving working tax credits has risen by half since 2003 – because of a surge in low-paid jobs. A living wage would bring down spending on tax credits, and increasingly in-work benefits like housing benefit and council tax benefit. Improving workers’ rights stuck in the Victorian era would allow working people to demand better wages from their employers, too, at a time when big corporations sit on a £750bn cash mountain."

Thanks Minty -you've said it much better than me!

Yes, I didn't phrase post 7 very well, did I. I really did mean that no single faith should be promulgated in schools and that no school should be based / funded on one faith only. I have absolutely no problem will all religions being debated and discussed in a 'morals and ethics' class (as I said above), no problem at all. I'm all for people learning about all faiths in order to better understand what underpins many aspects of society. But too many faith based schools teach their own 'brand' to the exclusion of all others. Take away the religious bias and there's a much better chance of people forming their opinions on all faiths based on an informed consideration of all the 'facts', myths and parables.

No problem with that - those topics can be covered and discussed as part of a 'morals and ethics' subject in school, and could include aetheism as well for example. I'm suggesting there should be no faith based schools, rather secular schools that cover morals, ethics and faiths as part of their syllabus. I would argue that faith based schools widen the rift you refer to rather than encouraging understanding of other faiths.

Really? Because it's usually you with that attitude. My own view is that only facts should be taught in schools. I don't think there should be religion-based schools either. My daughter and SiL are regular church goers and their daughter goes to a Church of England school. They know my views but, ultimately, it's up to them and it's not my place to interfere. If people choose to adhere to a certain religion or faith then that's fine by me. But they should do so in their places of worship, not in school, (like the French I think).

Marriage should be a secular convention, blessed by a church if people want it so. Get married in any church apart from the Church of England and you have to have a secular officer (the Registrar) present anyway. Churches, of all denominations, have too much influence - certainly too much relative to the number of genuine worshippers. All religion should be excluded from education too.

I have no idea and, I suspect, you don't either.

What 'stuff' did she have going on in her life?

But some people have to 'take' in order to supplement what they earn. I think I heard that 60% of the people affected by cuts to welfare benefits are people who ARE in work. In other words, the taxpayer is actually subsidising some employers by paying for these welfare benefits BECAUSE the employers pay such **** poor wages. Take that to its logical conclusion and it's easy to see that the taxpayer is, in effect, lining the pockets of employers and shareholders. Hence the drive for a 'living wage' as opposed to a minimum wage.

That's a great link MOG - I think TDD posted it recently. I get regular postings on my FB page and wallow in nostalgia every day

Has died I loved his music http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20609327

In other news, but worth them remembering if they decide to 'rent' their ground: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-20616466

Well, their millionaire buddies should be happy at least - benefit scroungers

I thank you

And what about those who earn so little that they don't pay tax anyway? A tax allowance to replace CB wouldn't help them one iota.

It was reported on the news this morning that most northern European countries, including the UK, have birth rates lower than death rates - in other words we're not replacing the population. That's a worry for the future.

Oops! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20600852

Well according to the government information you and I have both posted, it seems that if you are a highish earner and claim Child Benefit, you will either pay slightly less in additional tax than you claim in benefit or, at worst, you will pay the same in extra tax as you gain in benefit. But I imagine if you are a supra high earner you won't qualify for Child Benefit.

It's called overage and it's a common practice

Obviously I don't know your circumstances, but apparently it's important that you register for Child Benefit even if you choose not to take it for tax reasons: [h=2]You or your partner have an individual income of more than £50,000[/h] If you or your partner have an individual income of more than £50,000, you can still qualify for Child Benefit. But you'll need to decide whether to actually receive the payments. This is because from 7 January 2013 you may be liable to a new tax charge called the 'High Income Child Benefit charge'. It's important to still fill in a Child Benefit claim form, even if you don’t want to get the payments. This is because if you are entitled to receive Child Benefit it can: help you qualify for National Insurance credits that can protect your entitlement to State Pension help protect your entitlement to other benefits such as Guardian's Allowance ensure your child is automatically issued with a National Insurance number before their 16th birthday High Income Child Benefit charge

Would you qualify for Working Families Tax Credit since your combined incomes will have reduced due to her being on Statutory Maternity Pay only? Or has that changed too?

A bit like Moses then? The balance of payments didn't pick up this quarter when my two girls each had a baby so don't hold your breath about a sudden growth spurt (apart from Kate's stomach)

How so? Will tourists be invited to tea to meet the baby?

Are we expected to rush out and buy babygros then? Good luck to them - hope she gets over her morning sickness quickly.