Just keep your fingers crossed you keep pushing forwards... The banks don't like any sign of going backwards at the minute, they don't seem to be interested that we are in a downturn.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Just keep your fingers crossed you keep pushing forwards... The banks don't like any sign of going backwards at the minute, they don't seem to be interested that we are in a downturn.
43428888600834513169201732617970201210443316.
In fairness the Tories would have all flown by chopper / private jet....
Am I doing this right? >,<
MP's Expenses stats for frat class travel, makes for interesting reading!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2012/10/44-of-labour-mps-have-claimed-for-first-class-travel-in-last-year-33-of-libdems-and-only-16-of-torie.html
In fairness the Tories would have all flown by chopper / private jet....
Am I doing this right? >,<
lol, if I get work from NeoGaf I will have to start paying Evilore for advertising. PM me if you do, always happy to help.
Catching up on Bargain Hunt episodes they've missed, surely?
travisbickle
Member
MP's Expenses stats for frat class travel, makes for interesting reading!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2012/10/44-of-labour-mps-have-claimed-for-first-class-travel-in-last-year-33-of-libdems-and-only-16-of-torie.html
Doesn't really prove anything because Gideon was trying to travel in First Class on a Standard Class ticket. If anything it shows that Tories may be more brazen and have used this tactic on previous occasions.
And you hang out at Torie blogs?!
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I can't believe any of the pillocks tried to game the expenses claims again, particularly so soon afterwards.
Clay Davis
Member
absolutely agree, it's disgusting and completely immoral.
I hope this blows up and becomes a big issue and isn't brushed under the carpet.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
MP's Expenses stats for frat class travel, makes for interesting reading!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2012/10/44-of-labour-mps-have-claimed-for-first-class-travel-in-last-year-33-of-libdems-and-only-16-of-torie.html
Not all that interesting, given that a whole bunch of Conservatives get ministerial cars, that Labour MPs' constituencies are mostly further away from London, and that there's no first class on tube journeys to the leafy suburbs. Can't see that there's anything to make anything (either way) out of these figures. Would be more instructive if they showed 1st class v 2nd class travel.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Ah, I covered that off as well. Set the expectation of another 'chat' in March in case everything goes pear-shaped (though I didn't exactly put it that way!), and costed it out as well so he knows how much I might be asking for and why. No eyelids batted whatsoever.
So far as I can tell, this is all about managing the bank's expectations right (and actually I won't need to ask them for anything in March, as I'm doing some jiggery-pokery bed'n'breakfasting with the money they've just given me that opens up another, cheaper, line of credit in case I need it.
But setting the expectation that I might need it and then not having to is all part of the game - I'm working my way up to a big loan end of year 2!
I do find all this stuff fascinating. Mrs P is interested in the finances only insofar as whether we can afford to go to Tescos tomorrow - I'm trying to make sure we can still go to Tescos next April and buy a house for cash in 2015. Don't think she realises what a little goldmine we have started.
Clay Davis
Member
the statistics used come from the sunday telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...lass-and-24-claim-for-club-class-flights.html
are the sunday telegraph not trust worthy? I've always seen them as a reasonable newspaper, maybe I was wrong.
Not really, our statesmen travel a lot, probably at short notice and they have a lot to do. I've no problem with that setup being used by any party. If they got on the train and just listened to an iPod maybe. I've travelled to meetings on the train and travelled first as I needed the space to prepare whilst claiming it as an expense. Why shouldn't they?
What next the PM turning up to number 10 in a Fiat Panda? We'd be a laughing stock.
I wish you the best of luck, our country needs more like you!
Saying that 5 years ago those chats would not have been needed! I'm assuming you provided a decent amount of collateral as a private enterprise? That can be the problem for long standing Ltd companies, the required collateral might not be available.
Clay Davis
Member
I'm not sure I agree. if they were travelling at short notice, then the price of the first class ticket would still surely be higher than that of a standard ticket.
it sounds like a gaming of the system. they book first class tickets in advance and then use this loophole to get their money back at our expense.
It's not really a loophole is it? They can claim up to the price of a flexible standard ticket. If they can get First cheaper why shouldn't they? The vast majority of short notice travel will be Standard it appears as the rules seem very clear.
Only way to sort it would be to ban first class travel full stop, but when you are trying to run the country and have lots of meetings with lots of travelling in between that's probably not feasible.
Clay Davis
Member
it's a loophole because they can book a first class ticket in advance and then compare it a short notice standard class ticket. that's my problem with this. they can travel first class all they want and it's genuinely cheaper without using any loopholes or gaming the system, that's acceptable, but booking a ticket in advance and then reclaiming the money through a loophole isn't.
if that's what they want to do, they should pay for it out of their own pockets.
It's not a loophole, stop reading to much Daily Mail. The rules state they can claim up to the price of a flexible standard ticket for rail fare.
It's simple and not difficult. I assume you've never been able to claim expenses with your work?
What next do we start lambasting the MP's who never pre plan travel and always buy flex tickets on the day? How about having a pop they are washing their underpants too much and claiming too much for cleaning?
Clay Davis
Member
I don't read the daily mail. the loophole information comes from the sunday telegraph, I posted an excerpt from their piece a few posts above.
Papers never tend to let facts get in the way of a good story, hence the discussion of the last few pages of this thread.
Even if a story is true, it tends to contain a certain amount of spin.
Clay Davis
Member
this is true in some respects and I hope this is a case of they sunday telegraph spinning or sexing up the story, it would be horrifying to think that mp's are already back to exploiting the expenses system.
Nope, I can't see it. Their rules state they can claim up to the price of a flexible standard ticket. It's as simple as that. Expenses need to simple with few caveats to avoid confusion, or stuff getting claimed that shouldn't be.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
No actually!
Well, pretty well the only collateral that we have is the business stock (we sank all of our remaining capital into it and then some) and, to be quite honest, if we can't sell it there's absolutely no reason a bank would be better positioned to do so. So as collateral it is fuck all use (again, I didn't express it in quite those terms).
I've been very upfront about that all the way through. No point outright lying to a lender, because if you do, the point where you really need them is the point your lies get found out - which would probably ruin the relationship, the cashflow and the owners all simultaneously.
No, what largely made the difference is market knowledge lending credibility to our growth plans. I know - either personally or by reports from customers I have sent in as spies - every potential competitor within 150 miles, what they charge (more expensive than us), where they buy from (more expensive places than us), what their gross margins are (greedy), and what their advertising is like (rubbish), and can detail that shop by shop, region by region, potential customer by potential customer. I know our sales capacity in the shop, when we are likely to reach it, how we're going to cope with that short and long term, when additional costs kick in - and all that sort of stuff.
It's a big old game, and one that I am enjoying thoroughly.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Agreed. The problem is that if they are purchasing a ticket far in advance - as these first class tickets appear to have been (in order for them to be cheaper than a flexible standard) - when they could have bought a far cheaper standard ticket. I have no problem with funding their travel, particularly for MPs in distant constituencies and last minute ticket purchases shouldn't be a problem (as long as they are last minute due to circumstance not poor planning). However if they are taking the time to book well in advance, it should be the cheapest possible. I don't think that the rules can realistically apply this, however, without getting overly complex.
Synth_floyd
Banned
So is Scotland really going to secede from the UK? I'm not British but it's an interesting topic if they do.
We will find out in the Autumn of 2014 - when the referendum on independence is set to go ahead.
Honestly? I think they'll say No to independence, by the smallest margin imaginable.
People are scared of change.
Fingers crossed! I think we're entering an interesting period in European politics; a lot of the old multi-national states like the UK and Spain no longer seem as relevant or necessary as they used to. People are starting to wisen up to the fact that they can be represented at a national level with full sovereignty, while still retaining Big State benefits through NATO and the EU.
The big question is whether Catalonia puts it own independence vote ahead of Scotlands. Given the words coming from that country I think the next European state is quite likely to be Catalonia rather than Scotland.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't really have a problem with them travelling in first class, anyway. I know a handful of special advisers to MPs (which sounds very rar but they're all just PPE Oxbridge grads I went to school with) and the lives of MPs sound absolutely horrible. It's even worse for ministers. You know that episode in the first series of the Thick of It where Hugh says that the only time he gets to enjoy himself is taking a shit? It seems that that's actually the case. Yeah, "normal" people have to go in standard (and even that isn't funded by their employer 99% of the time), but then this isn't a normal job. There aren't many jobs where you're expected to work in two places at once, sometimes in opposing ends of the country. Where you're expected to be constantly at the beck and call of the public. Where everything you do, from where you send your kids to school to where you go on holiday is scrutinised and could end up in a tattle column or on order-order (and I say this as a fan of Guido - his office is round the corner from my flat!). And to do all this whilst trying to have a family? It's not practical, and it's not surprising it attracts the weird sort of sycophants that it does. If travelling in first helps ease the burden of work by ensuring they can get a bit of work done on the train so they can leave Westminster at 10pm rather than 12pm, I've really got no problem with that.
I mean shit, it's not exactly like first class on trains is the Ritz. This isn't the Orient Express, it's the Virgin service to Euston. First class just means slightly less piss stained into the carpet.
I mean shit, it's not exactly like first class on trains is the Ritz. This isn't the Orient Express, it's the Virgin service to Euston. First class just means slightly less piss stained into the carpet.
CyclopsRock
Member
It'll be interesting, because even if Scotland were to become independent tomorrow, it'd fail to get into the EU for just the reason you mention - Catalonia. Spain would refuse to accept Scotland's entry as it'd represent a separatist movement and give legitimacy to Catalonia. It's the same reason they didn't vote for Kosovo's entry into the EU, and you need a full sweep to get in. Some people point to Ireland as a success story (though, frankly, that's laughable - for the majority of its independence its economy has been in an quagmire of shit, and it only started climbing out of it thanks to free money from the EU and an enormous pile of debt courtesy of the ECB) but they couldn't even get that. I think they'd really struggle. I honestly don't care much if they stay or go, but I think it'd be better for the remainder of the UK and Scotland if they stayed.
Delusibeta
Banned
I'll predict that the margin of the No victory will be quite a bit bigger, to be honest. An independent Scotland won't last a century reliant on North Sea oil, largely because North Sea oil won't last a century.
An independent Scotland would be a good thing both north and south of the border. Scotland could finally pursue economic and social policies suitable to its people. There are so many examples of states that size thriving in Europe that I just find it a bit ridiculous (and typically anglo-centric) to suggest that somehow Scotland wouldn't be one of them.
And there is a considerable body of opinion, Cyclops, that the new Scottish state and the new UK-remnant state would both inherit all their prior treaty obligations and rights including EU and NATO membership. Remember, there would be two new states, not one.
And there is a considerable body of opinion, Cyclops, that the new Scottish state and the new UK-remnant state would both inherit all their prior treaty obligations and rights including EU and NATO membership. Remember, there would be two new states, not one.
CyclopsRock
Member
I've never been sure as to why the UK would become a 'new' country - do you know? It didn't after Irish Independence in 1921, so what's different here?
I don't think it would count as a new country, it was still the UK after the Republic got its independence as there was still 2 kingdoms in there, so id Scotland leave will it still be a united kingdom
Sickboy007
Member
It was called the United Kingdom when they united the crowns, right?
Without Scotland it would be just Kingdom of England (including Wales) + NI.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sure, which might throw up some funny pub quiz questions in 20 years time were Scotland to leave but I don't see why that'd result in the requirement to form a new country - the crowns and still united, even if I dare say an Independent Scotland would not attest to channeling power via a monarchy.
travisbickle
Member
Amusing political freudian slip there.
Train's a non-issue that the papers will run with, it's funny to me in a "class" sense, Gideon not wanting to sit in "pleb class" seats!!!!
Sickboy007
Member
The crowns would be held by the same monarch, but the Kingdom itself would be divided. If Scotland were not to adopt a republican constitution, it would be the same as the other Commonwealth realms.
England + NI would be a successor state.
CyclopsRock
Member
But why any more so than when Ireland left in 1921? The UK was not a successor state then. The Kingdom was divided then, only it went from 3 to 2 (sort of - it depends on if you consider Northern Ireland to be a kingdom, since it comprised what used to be the Kingdom of Ireland). Now it could go from 2 to 1, which I acknowledge makes the name somewhat silly, but it is just that; A name. It has no consequence in international relations, so why would the remainder of the UK be a successor state now, when it wasn't in 1921?
(These are genuine questions btw, I'm not asking rhetorically to make a point - I really don't know.)
Visualante2
Member
Just canvassing for more opinions on the 16 + 17 year old vote. Enjoyed your post radiohead, it has turned me around a little. Was previously quite in favour of the idea. Really the core thing for me is having consistency in the values and responsibilities we give to people. Paying tax and having no say is unfair to my point of view, but at the same time we don't all magically become experienced and developed enough to vote at a particular age. At some point we just have to throw the baby in the water and let it swim for itself.
Making a film for the Beeb so we're going to be asking the public what they think. But I'd love to hear some opinions that can inform our pre-production.
Making a film for the Beeb so we're going to be asking the public what they think. But I'd love to hear some opinions that can inform our pre-production.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
My initial reaction is to say no.
This is largely, I think, because 16-17 year olds are by and large not independent - not financially, not mentally, not socially. But that's a dangerous argument, as something very similar was used for many years to deny women the vote.
I'm still inclined to say no though, and on much the same grounds. That's a huge block vote of questionable political maturity, the vast majority of whose lives is spent under the influence of state-sponsored educators of notably leftish leaning and with near-as-dammit no idea of the financial implications of anything.
Besides, vast chunks of politicians time will be spent making soundbites to appeal to the youngsters and they'll have even less time to say anything sensible to the rest of us.
Plus, 16 being the age of consent, they probably got their minds on other things.
Bung it up to 21 again, like it was before 1970.
ScreenSplitter
Member
You could argue that 16/17 year olds don't have an expansive knowledge of politics enough to give an informed vote, but I'd say that goes for 40% of the adult populace too.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'd agree that we need to normalise the 'age of consent' as it were. Why can you pay tax at one age but not smoke til another? Have sex at one but not vote til another? Join the military at one, but not drink alcohol til another?
And I'm sympathetic with the idea of no-taxation-without-representation but... well, it's philosophically muddy waters. Why do we deem that to be important? Certainly, it was important enough for the 13 colonies to rebel against the UK for. Presumably it's because it isn't right that the government can take your money on the grounds that it's doing your will without asking you your opinion. Well, even if we ignore VAT and whatnot that you can pay from the first day you get pocket money, it's still tricky because we routinely and without question given the vote to people who don't pay any income tax. Presumably because the laws that get made still affect them. Which is fair enough, but they also affect children. If we allow people who don't pay tax to vote, then we're acknowledging that there are reasons beyond tax paying which define who should be able to vote and, logically therefore, who shouldn't be able to.
In other words, I think it should be down to an age of 'maturity' rather than anything to do with taxation. I'm not sociologist, so I have no idea when that is. It's also worth noting that I think this is only of academic interest - the 18-25 demographic is the one least likely to vote, so I don't think it'll make a whole lot of practical difference - I don't think politicians will alter their campaigns or policies at all. So it really is just about a statement on who we want to be allowed to vote. As such, I couldn't give a shit.
And I'm sympathetic with the idea of no-taxation-without-representation but... well, it's philosophically muddy waters. Why do we deem that to be important? Certainly, it was important enough for the 13 colonies to rebel against the UK for. Presumably it's because it isn't right that the government can take your money on the grounds that it's doing your will without asking you your opinion. Well, even if we ignore VAT and whatnot that you can pay from the first day you get pocket money, it's still tricky because we routinely and without question given the vote to people who don't pay any income tax. Presumably because the laws that get made still affect them. Which is fair enough, but they also affect children. If we allow people who don't pay tax to vote, then we're acknowledging that there are reasons beyond tax paying which define who should be able to vote and, logically therefore, who shouldn't be able to.
In other words, I think it should be down to an age of 'maturity' rather than anything to do with taxation. I'm not sociologist, so I have no idea when that is. It's also worth noting that I think this is only of academic interest - the 18-25 demographic is the one least likely to vote, so I don't think it'll make a whole lot of practical difference - I don't think politicians will alter their campaigns or policies at all. So it really is just about a statement on who we want to be allowed to vote. As such, I couldn't give a shit.
killer_clank
Member
Probably worth pointing out the age of majority in Scotland is 16, 18 everywhere else in the UK.. So it's fair enough imo. Also, the "maturity" argument is dodgy ground, your average voter of any age is woefully knowledgeable any ways. Probably the 16/17 year olds who make the effort to register and vote will at least be vaguely knowledgable about what they're voting for.
frankie_baby
Member
16 + 17 year olds should be given the vote anyway, personally I think voting age should be 14, in fact personally I'm in favour of citizenship and politics being taught in primary schools, may take some time but I think it could solve a lot of problems we have with some teenagers in this country
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I don't see any reason why these things should all happen at the same age, or indeed at the same age for everybody.
Why not have every youngster take the British Citizenship Test and let them vote if they pass it? At whatever age.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well, because knowing the meaning of Magna Carta, or when female enfranchisement occured has little to do with smoking. I think the reason it should be normalised is that the whole point of banning things by age is that people's faculties of rationality have not developed to a point where they can be trusted to make the right decision. Now, like you say, this certainly doesn't happen to everyone at the same time, and to some people never does. But... well, we need to draw a line somewhere. It doesn't, to my mind, make any sense to say that any given person's mind is developed enough to have sex but not gamble, for example. Why the difference? If you think sex is potentially damaging (and the fact we don't have a staggered age of consent for sex like much of Europe suggests that this is the case) then why do we assume that a 16 year old can rationalise their decision making about that, but not smoking? This is the case whatever the specific ages are.
I'd question the ability of a test to accurately test one's maturity. Knowing 'the government' it would become, in not so short a time, a smorgasbord of propaganda about those items that it 'unlocks', like an angry mother begrudgingly allowing her son to go on a hunting trip with dad - ie
"Which of the following is true? Circle all that apply.
Smoking gives you:
- Loads of Cancer
- Loads of respiratory Disease
- Poverty
- No Friends"
In addition to that, I don't doubt it'd become, very quickly, like the driving theory test, where you buy the training DVD, hammer it, pass without thinking and find yourself unable to recall anything within 10 minutes of leaving the exam hall. If a test that accurately measured it could be made, I'd buy into the idea, I'm just very sceptical.
At the end of the day (in the words of John Terry), whatever age you choose there will be a ton of people that don't know what the fuck they're talking about. The longer you leave it, the slightly fewer of these people there'll be, but the more people you disenfranchise. I struggle to care much about the whole debate because most 16 and 17 year olds think they know everything, and the national debate is not, I think, missing their voice. That said, I think that the lower the age of consent, the less bang-whizz it becomes when one can finally do it (see: alcohol) so I'd have no real objections to lowering it.
In other words, I've just wasted your time reading all this, because my conclusion is "I don't care."
I'm still waiting to see how you're going to spin this as anti-Labour.
How is it anti labour? I've no problem with any politician of any party using a first class ticket, its a complex job and the space afforded when travelling could be useful.
I'd laugh it off as a non story if it was Labour, and it appears its the Labour lot who like first class the most anyway, but again, I've no problem with it.
I'm not totally anti Labour by the way, apart from the crash and being too warmongery and being oblivious to it they did quite well. I am anti Ed's though, as I think they are both blithering idiots and I won't vote Labour with them at the helm. Milliband is my towns MP though, so I'm entitled to my opinion.
That would not be a good idea alright