david_carnell

Child benefit should be universal. Rich or poor. Whether you need it or not. Why? Because, simply. benefits only for the poor are poor benefits. Without the involvement of all of society, the welfare state is seen only as US-style safety net for the lowest groups in society. Without the "sharp elbowed middle-classes" campaigning, these benefits that were fought so hard for, are easily lost. As someone else has mentioned, this is the state's way of saying "we recognise being a parent is hard and that you are responsible for the future of this country, so here's a little help". And that should be lauded. Instead, we moan that a tiny percentage of people earning massive salaries (compared to the UK median), mainly in London, don't need it and that this will make some big difference to the national debt if it's abolished. It won't. It's a trojan horse, to test the waters....before they charge through, tearing up the welfare state piece by piece. And if people don't stand their ground now, and say no, we can blame no one but ourselves when the whole system comes tumbling down.

@ Huguenot - I'm honoured to be named in such a venerable list of ForumThinkersTM but I think you're slightly confused regarding National Insurance. When it was the scheme was expanded in 1946, alongside the state pension, it was never designed to be a savings scheme on an individual basis. It was designed almost as a zero-sum gain where those currently claiming were paid for by those in work. But there are two fundamental problems that have since reared their ugly head ruining Beveridge?s ideal. The first is that when the state pension at 65 was introduced the average life expectancy for men was 64. You were more likely to be dead than claiming a pension and when you did claim it you had a high chance of dying every year. Now life expectancies have risen dramatically. The elderly are, due to a demographic time bomb, stripping the system bare. The second, related, issue was the ratio of workers to claimants. It started at near 7:1 in 1946. Today it is close to 3:1. That is unsustainable. People either have to work longer, pay more, claim later or be given less. Or a combination. But the current situation is unsustainable. The power of the grey vote makes it a political hot potato, however. @ All - There has been a massive, 14 page debate in the Drawing Room on equality in society (the biggest thread in there I believe) and I don?t want to just repost old arguments from there. It is worth noting, however, that in almost every measurable outcome more equal (or fair) societies do better. That doesn?t mean there is no difference between rich and poor ? just the relative difference is smaller. The equality gap. People in these societies are happier, live longer, commit less crime, have more intelligent populations, eat more healthily, have better records on female equality, less drug abuse, lower levels of imprisonment, fewer teenage births, and even contribute less to global warming. I can show statistical evidence for every one of these. The method of attaining this society is the debate that now needs to be had.

Or the algae-based nerve agent that had to be handled by men dressed in full BCN suits but those standing two feet away in jeans and biker jackets are impervious. Neato. Still marvellous though. And just who is Lucas "John" North???

Not found a good one in ED yet - the best one I've had so far is from the Flat Cap Coffee Co. on Strutton Ground nr London Victoria. I tried Blackbird's but not much cop I'm afraid.

It's not Xmas until stir-up Sunday. Nov 21st in case you're interested folks.

I rather like this article from Johann (didn't he used to be Jonathan?) Hari in the Indy today: Ed, prepare for the fight of your life

@ Ted and Brendan - honestly, you two! I can assure you that working whilst in the public sector has many pros (little work, breakfast at 10:30) it certainly does not provide free muffins. And they stopped me having any green pens after the incident with the Ugandan trade commissioner.

Bloody hell Ted, I'm crying into my breakfast muffin. That's the epitome of poignant. RIP Mr Neil Smith.

Glad to see Ed has some balls. Getting Nick Browne to stand aside as Chief Whip might not seem a big deal to those outside Westminster but it is a clear indication of his desire to bury cliques and cabals and unite the party. Much-liked Rosie Winterton is to replace him.

A highly entertaining game at Elland Road in the Championship last night - at least for the neutrals. After going 0-1 down to local(ish) rivals, Preston, Leeds romped into a 4-1 lead only to be pegged back to 4-2 before half-time. 6 goals in 45 minutes is good but after the break, galvinised by a father-inspired rant from manager Darren Ferguson, Preston stormed back with another 4 goals to win 4-6. As a Leeds fan I'm disappointed with result but can't help look on in disabelief at such a scoreline. Concede six goals at home? Lose a three goal lead? Score 4 and not win? I can't decide which is more ridiculous. On an aside, I'm saddened but not surprised that ex-Leeds star Jermaine Beckford is making little impact at Everton bar a penalty miss against Brentford. He's got an eye for goal but lacks the refinement needed in the Premier League.

Malefic 1. Having or exerting a malignant influence. 2. Evil; malicious. [Latin maleficus : male, ill; see mel-3 in Indo-European roots + -ficus, -fic.]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't get Carnell started on bread > > As for choice - how about trying proper bakers > instead of supermarkets? *tries to bite tongue* I think others have already made my point - supermarket bread is utter junk in the main, due to the Chorleywood Method of baking. It shouldn't even be called bread. Please buy elsewhere. *fails*

I lack creativity.

The comparisons of Ed Miliband with Michael Foot and depictions of him as a left wing candidate are, frankly, laughable. If the Labour Party wanted to be truly radical, why did Diane Abbott go out in the first round? Ed is slightly, AND I mean slightly, to the left of his brother but both are firmly within the right of the Party. They served in Blair and Brown cabinets for heavens sake. Whilst Ed appealed to a broad church during the election I think he'll have little trouble attracting the support of the swing voter.

matthew123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect the Tories are cracking open the > champagne bottles tonight over Ed Milliband > becoming Labour leader. Instinctively the > electorate will not vote for a party led by > someone who sounds retarded and associated with > the Unions. For me I doubt he will still be leader > come the next general election. Oh FFS! Are you being this much of an arse deliberately? Have you considered for one moment that any noises eminating from Tory HQ about "how they are thrilled they are Ed won" and that "David was the danger to them" is nothing but spin? And you don't think the electorate will vote for some "associated with the unions" Matthew? I presume this is because he received the backing of union leaders and also the highest number of votes from their members? Do you know who else received the same backing in 1994? Tony Blair. I seem to remember him being vaguely successful in three elections.... And how will the Tories feel this gives them a mandate to do anything? This election was voted for only by Labour members. You're spouting utter twaddle based on your own convictions rather than knowledge or insight.

I think it's ludicrous to make those statements on the day of his election as leader, 4.5 years before thenext general election. Or to try and second guess the entire electorate. Negative judgements now are just Murdoch/Associated Press inspired bullshit.

Have any of the naysayers on here even been to a hustings? Or listened to more than a 5 min soundbite on tv? Or have you just swallowed a media depiction that bears little resemblence to the real Ed Miliband. Do some research before making ludicrous judgements like "unelectable" or "back to the wilderness". It does no one justice.

I'm delighted it's Ed. I voted for him after hearing him speak. I hope the rest of the country were as inspired as I was. I genuinely believe he can be a progressive force for change with the Labour movement and country at large. Whilst the margin of victory was small I do not forsee the same back room deals and subsequent squabbling between him and David that infected the party in the Blair/Brown era. Mother Miliband should put a stop to that! I'm looking forward to his speech on Tuesday and recommend you all tune in, even if you wouldn't normally.

I voted Ed and the misses has a bet on him too. Fingers crossed. Although I'm more optimistic for his potential success than ????. And for those who have missed it....Ken Livingstone is Labour's nomination for London Mayor in 2012. Ding ding. Round two.

The old printers on Forest Hill Road is a good one too. Has a calendar on the wall from 1994 and old equipment still. Plus massive space out back and upstairs all unused. Bizarre.

Classic joke.... What goes "Ssssshhhhhhh......" Rod Hull's TV

Actually LadyM, Singapore has a very high prison population. It's close to 400 per 100,000 people. In comparison the UK is just below 150 per 100,000. Interestingly, prison populations are almost directly related to income inequality within a society. Lowest prison populations can be found in countries with very equal income distribution such as Japan, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. High income inequality in nations such as the USA, Singapore, Portugal, UK and Israel puts them at the top end of the chart for prison population (per head of population). When it comes to homicide rates the graph is almost exactly the same i.e. direct proportionality between income inequality and murder. However, along with Finland, Singapore is at odds with this. Whilst it may be an over simplification, high gun ownership in Finland may account for their higher than expected homicide rate whilst Singapore's strict firearms control may account for their lower than expected murder count.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Carnell. I'm shocked. What? We all have guilty pleasures and I'm afraid this is mine. James May is the only likeable presenter on it but I just can't help but find it entertaining. I don't buy Clarkson books or read his columns but once a week, for an hour, I find the combination of cars, crashes, explosions and minor celebrity a blessed relief from the world of high-culture that I normally inhabit. One can go to too many performances of Swan Lake you know.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do really enjoy watching Top Gear though, not > because I 'like' or 'admire' Clarkson, I like the > premise of the programme. > > It appeals to me at a really base level, the > rebellious little schoolboy inside who gets off on > seeing how many burgers he can fit in his mouth, > or bullying the goofy kid. Ditto.

My highlight of the End of The Road festival: