Blah Blah

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564798/Charges-loom-election-probe-Police-told-election-watchdog-prepared-prosecute-dozens-Tory-candidates-officials-spending-limit-breaches.html Looks like the door is open for prosecutions.

It is true that it is extremely difficult to fire someone in the public sector, but the public sector is not responsible for pay differentials. If anything, it is the unions of the public sector that have fought for better wages for those at the bottom. And that is also why the public sector is no longer the torch bearer for the worst paid jobs. That accolade now belongs to the private sector again. The problem with that of course is that our taxes pay those salaries whereas the private sector can avoid tax on profit and pay the lowest wages. I think it's within the private sector that work needs to be done on this but that is always a fine line between attracting business and driving it away. It's a complex thing, difficult to change or fix and of which (as ???? says) bureaucracy is a major obstacle. I'd also add into that the lobbying powers of those with most to lose.

We have a friend who lives there and those buildings are really cheaply made. They can't put anything on the walls because they are all plasterboard with few joists. I'm not suprised they are falling down.

I agree with all of that ????, which is why I argue that the emphasis should be on finding ways to close the gap, or raise the wages of the 90% rather than increasing the taxes of those at the top. I also think that 50p is about the limit on top tax. As you say, beyond that you actually collect less in receipts. We are always competing with lower tax thresholds elsewhere.

I'm trying to decide who has the better six pack. Daley or Ennis. Apparently the creation od Stella McCartney.

Just to add that ANPR and speed cameras etc, always have twin lens as well.

Tha's how they always do it - cameras on both sides. You find permanent ones on some junctions. They just measure traffic - those are usually TFL ones.

It's just a camera, attached to a battery, recording to a hard disk and very similar to ones used to record traffic data in the past, but if you really want to know for sure, just ring the council.

Uncle is a hoot isn't he? Trying I think to blame Southwark for tenants getting into arrears because of DWP blunders.

Derogatory? Simply making the distinction between policy based on good research and impact assessment, and policy based poorly thought out ideas - of which this government is a master of. Seen how the Lords have ripped apart the Housing and Planning Bill btw? It's a corker that one. There's a huge difference between having an ideal to create something that unquestionably will improve millions of lives and following ideology that has been proven to fail again and again. Why does Osborne keep setting himself targets he can't meet for example? That's my point.

They look like traffic data cameras to me. They used to be a camera up a lampost with a battery at the bottom. They just look like the same thing operating with a smaller battery. They are used for data gathering on traffic flow.

It's a reflection of the gap between those at the top and those at the bottom. Plato argued the the ratio between top salary and bottom salary should be no more than 6-1. JP Morgan argued no more than 20-1. Today the ratio can be in the 1000s-1. What those figures say to me, is just how imbalaced the employment market is, in relation to cost of living etc. The average salary is 27k, but most people in full time work don't earn it - that too reflects how that wage gap skews average figures. We've been here before of course. The entire industrial revolution was enabled by such inequality of earnings, and things like employment, housing and welfare rights are historically a recent thing. But when government tries to do something to address the imbalance (like rising min wages etc) they run into a ton of other problems. We live in a plutocracy (always have) and you can't have true democracy with that. It's not really capitalism that is the problem either, but the form of capitalism that plutocrats foist upon us.

Rye lane is fully covered with CCTV and is full of people day and night. Perfectly safe. Like most stabbings, this was probably between two people who know each other - not a lawless random rampage through bargain basements and pound shops! But you are probably right to not wine there Fox. It's usually fully of drunken students stumbling between Canavans and the Bussey - all a bit too young and exciting for you ;)

I think you are spot on heartblock. Sadly this is yet another ideologically driven pursuit.

LondonMix is correct on this one. The recruitment crisis is real. I know many qualified professionals who have moved abroad, from nurses and midwives to doctors. Australia seems to be a favourite destination. At the same time, the latest recruitment drive is targetting countries like the Phillipines and there is something to be said about taking qualifed staff from countries that need them as much as we do. Personally I think that Hunt is playing chess on this one. He's hoping for public support to drop off etc rather thsn make any real effort to resolve the dispute. And whomever posted the scenario of cancelling docotors contracts and making them reapply is right. That is the only way this new contract can be imposed, but I think that would enrage the BMA if he went down that route (although I wouldn't put anything beyond this government).

So it may open the way for challnges elsewhere. Thanks for that Dave.

Does anyone know what exactly the overcharging equates to in real terms for those affected. I.e how much % was the overcharge?

No they weren't charged to the national expenses at all. They were left off any accounting completely. And the rules are clear on what constitutes national and local spending. The cost of a hotel in a constituency to put up activists is a local expense. Head office are trying to claim that can be included as a national expense. It will be for the electoral commission to decide, but if they decide it is indeed a local expense, then the electoral agent in those 24 constituencies of guilty of both overpsending on limits and not reporting those expenses. It IS a criminal offence to do that with a fine and up to a year in prison as a consequence for both the MP concerned and the electoral agent. It's pretty serious stuff.

I don't understand you point Mac. It's not the fault of senior doctors and consultants that demand has grown while funding of services has not.

Philip Green is just the reincarnate of the equally hideous Goldsmith senior. More interested in milking the profits than running stable business. And he has previous form too. But as usual, he will be able to continue doing what he has always done - hostile takovers followed by asset stripping - and ruining long standing companies.

Just because they can earn something doesn't mean they do. Jeremy Hunt is a full supporter of privatisation - there's no doubt about that. And slowly his department has been strangling funding accross the country so that certain areas are doomed to see a drop in service and outcomes - which in turn will affirm his case for privatisation. The NHS already does outsource because of things that have been cut. In the area of psychiatry and mental health (the area I work in), there has been the closure of wards that once had 5000 beds accross the country and the loss of 3000 staff. Now, the NHS regularly has to hire beds in the private sector at a cost of ?1000 plus per week (each) because it has no beds for increasing numbers of patients. And sometimes, there are no beds avaialable in the private sector at all. So where do we treat people then? Junior doctors are under particular stress as it is. It doesn't matter how much you pay anyone. If a person is working extrememly long hours, some of them unsocial, in an environment that is under resourced, they are going to suffer. It looks as though there is a legal challenge to this contract anyway. A contract can not be 'imposed' without both sides agreement to it. But it will take time for that legal challenge to work through the courts. In the meantime, I expect the strikes to continue and fully support them.

Trade deals are always difficult to negotiate with the bigger countries (and markets) always having the upper hand. It's nonsense to think leaving the EU will suddenly give us a better position when negotiationg trade deals with EU countries (for all the reasons I listed above). The EU is a collective machine, not a single country and all are bound by the same rules. There will be NO 'special' deals. And if we can't agree we will still be subject to WTO rules which means a 10% tariff on vehicles alone. The ONS publish figures of just over 200bn in exports to the EU or 44.6% of our total epxorts. They are a pretty reliable source wouldn't you say? All summarised here with links to the spredsheets of breakdowns. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/international-transactions/outward-foreign-affiliates-statistics/how-important-is-the-european-union-to-uk-trade-and-investment-/sty-eu.html You might want to retract your assumption that I don't check my facts before quoting figures. But I would never take a suggestion from anyone that was laced with sarcasm.

And nowhere have I talked about imports. The EU doesn't force us to import anything. We choose to do that. We have trade defecits with China too and just about every other country we trade with, because we don't make anything anymore. We can't compete with the likes of China and leaving the EU won't change that. Exports on the other hand are extrememly important for jobs and business. And that's why I keep referring to those. If we change who we import from, we may pay more or less for that import which is passed on to consumers. If we lose our ability to export to the EU or anywhere, people will lose jobs, and businesses go bust. I don't want to play Russian Roulette with those ?200bn of annual exports and the UK jobs and businesses they support. Do you?

I think it would be in the spirit of democracy to re-run those elections yes. Criminal fraud is serious, esp when it comes to elections. It is also the case that in marginal seats, foot soldiers are extrememly important and effective in reaching voters. The reason why there are spending limits set in law is so that no party can outspend another to victory. These overspends paid for party activists to stay in the constitutency for the puspose of campaigning on behalf of the MP standing. So yes, it matters deeply.

'we are in trade defeceit with the EU we are actually more important to them than us' This is just not the case ???? (re importance). We are not special at all. If we leave the EU we will not be able to escape trade tariffs as the out campaign seem to think. So what if Germany sell cars to us. They cannot negotiate a free trade deal with us because they will still be in the EU. This is what the out campaigners fail to understand. Membership buys us access to that market, and the benefits it brings. Leave, and to still have access to that market we will have to pay for it. Those who negotiate EU trade agreements have all said the same thing. There is no way that the 26 other member states will tolerate us leaving and still having access to trade on free terms - just no way at all - and Germany will be powerless to do anything about it. And the significance of what both Obama and Clinton have both said, is that the out campaign seems to think we can replace that trade (if the door is kept closed to us) with trade to countries like America. But America has said that won't happen. And whilst we are in the wilderness of withdrawal, and uncertainty of just what trade agreements we can salvage etc, what do you suppose will happen to confidence in our economy. Investment is already an an all time low.