buctootim

Fair point! I guess Lynch must be in some popular beat combo

I really struggle to reconcile Sids interesting and thoughtful posts with his Jedward avatar. Somehow the two just clash.

Thats the whole trouble with the modern Conservative party though (and indeed Labour). Tyrie is an excellent MP, perhaps one of the best, but because he knows his own mind and doesnt always follow the whip, he is left as a relatively insignificant back bencher whilst compliant and mediocre idiots fill many of the front bench positions. If there were more independently minded MPs of all shades parliament would be much better for it.

Get one of these. No idea what you bait it with.

So what would you do differently? Have no scheme so that there is no incentive to work because the costs of childcare outweigh the wages that could be earned, or have a scheme whereby the recipient continues to recieve the full credit even though their wages far outweigh the childcare costs? The reason for the taper is to provide an incentive to work whilst not using taxpayers money to those who dont need it.

That 11 year old report was very supportive of the scheme. Your point is?

Because means testing is expensive - leading to the bureaucratic waste the tories want to eliminate. For relatively small amounts of money - £20pw - in practice its usually cheaper to have a universal system where every family is entitled to it, knowing that in practice the 1,000 richest familes in Britain mostly wont bother to claim.

er no it doesnt. I have actually received it in the past when the kids were pre school. I know it works. Show me one real life example where it doesnt (rather than Daily Mail 'Bureacratic Broken Britain crap).

What do you suggest? Giving everyone the same tax credit regardless of how many children they have; whether or not they have to pay for childcare; or if one child is disabled and needs equipment to be able to function?

The working families tax credit takes into account how many children you have, how much you pay for childcare so that you can work, and if anyone is disabled and needs additional care. So everyones circumstances are diffrent and you cant (and shouldnt) have an identical payment to everybody. It is a progressive scheme designed to ensure that no-one will be worse off by working (or doing over time).

Yep. The irony is that she'd look better with her natural dark hair instead of the cheap bottle blonde.

Good article explaining new parachute plan here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/7641526/Football-League-clubs-at-odds-with-each-other-over-Premier-League-payment-plan.html

Not according to the Times. Just asked for more detail http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article7112021.ece

I agree about the hypocrisy over non doms. Ashcroft is a paticularly slimy piece of work though. I know from a first hand conversation with a senator in Belize that he threatened to overthrow the government there if they didnt grant him sole rights to set up a new tax free port - not as far fetched as you might think. Belize only has 300,000 people and Ashcroft is worth about two years of national GDP.

One of the main problems is that it is so damn difficult and time consuming to sack anyone. I used to manage a medical department with 120 staff in a London Teaching Hospital. Sacking one woman who has been off sick for 185 days with 53 different instances of 'sickness' (one including taking a whole day off because she fell into a puddle) over three years - took nigh on 30% of my time for five months. Often its easier to try and improve performance, even though you know they wont. The worst part is the demoralising effect it has on the vast majority of hard working dedicated and low paid staff.

No I havent. Must admit I like a paper to challenge my views, not reinforce them. Do like Merv though, Ill google it.

I think the point he was making is how much would actually be saved by axing that one £40k pa job. Very roughly the gov would save the £40k salary, 11% employers NI and pension - maybe £48,500pa. They would lose c£12,000 in tax and NI. Probably another £2,000 in VAT, £4,000 in unemployment benefit and might have to pay out another £16,000 in housing and other benefits if the employee has a family - total about £34,000pa. Nett saving only about £14,500.

Also the big unknown is economic growth over the next five years. Return to 3% growth quickly and we might be able to escape with small tax rises and public spending freezes.

I disagree. Under current economic circumstances any party with a majority, likely a slim one, would be reluctant to take the tough decisions necessary fearing they will be blamed and drummed out of office for a generation (look at how Thatcher is still reviled by many). A coalition where everybody shares the blame (should be the credit) could work well.

Is that part of the new Tory crime and justice policy? The guilty will be rammed and maimed by drunken MPs.

Dont worry about it. The Greek government were borrowing from commercial banks but they have taken fright so the Eurozone governments will step in and lend the money instead. It will have zero impact on your honeymoon, apart from maybe making the pound a bit stronger against the euro, so you pay less for meals and drinks. Have a good one.

Im not off to Santorini in Mid May or August. I'm not at all worried about the situation.

Totally agree. Id rather see a relative unknown in a small club than anybody you could name in Wembley arena.

If you cherry picked the best people from the front benches of each of the parties you would just about have enough to make one decent cabinet imo. Pretty sharp indictment of the quality of people going into politics currently.

er no. A Tory researcher dragged him out to meet charming Dave, which makes it all the funnier.