For 2014/15 the Derbeyshire County Council has a net budget requirement of £511.4m.
The European Council budget for 2014 is €534.2 million - which is about £450m.
Very interesting.
Now, how much does it cost to run Derby council?
Not the lighting, street cleaning, rubbish collection etc - just the day to day running of the council offices (not including those that work there in the cleansing, tourism etc departments - just the ones who deal with the business of actual council meetings and council business), councillors expenses and the odd "fact finding mission". Then we can compare like for like.
This is what the British Geological Survey says on their own web page about the study:
Jurassic shale of the Weald Basin: resource estimation report
"The British Geological Survey (BGS) in association with the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has completed an estimate for the amount of shale oil and shale gas in the Weald Basin in south-east England; published 23 May 2014.
The estimate is in the form of a range to reflect geological uncertainty. The range of shale oil in place is estimated to be between 2.20 and 8.57 billion barrels (bbl) or 293 and 1143 million tonnes, but the central estimate for the resource is 4.4 billion bbl or 591 million tonnes.
No significant gas resource is recognised using the current geological model. This is mainly because the shale is not thought to have reached the geological maturity required to generate gas.
The figure for oil represents the total amount of oil present in the rocks. It is not known what percentage of the oil present in the shale could be commercially extracted. In order to estimate the shale oil reserve, drilling and testing of new wells will be required to give a better idea of oil production rates.
In addition, non-geological factors such as oil price, operating costs and the scale of development agreed by the local planning system will affect the amount of oil produced.
Shale oil clearly has potential in Britain but it will require geological and engineering expertise, investment and protection of the environment. It will also need organisations like the BGS to play their part in providing up to date and accurate information on resources and the environment to the public, industry and government".
Which, I'm afraid, is along way from Addickted's claim that:
"It's really going to turn our economy around and ensure the lights don't go out over the next thirty years".
And that's without taking into account the economic desirability or the environmental impact of using any oil resourses there might be to run power stations.
Back to business as usual in the general election. No one is going to vote for a single issue party to run a country.
Farage will be gutted.
Yet again 0 coverage for the 4th biggest party in the country.
Second time I've seen someone mention that the 4th biggest party got no mention. Who are the 4th biggest party and how do you come to the conclusion that that is the case?
Anti Fracking is the big negative for me with The Greens.
It's really going to turn our economy around and ensure the lights don't go out over the next thirty years.
I don't know about the UK, but in Australia the Greens are far more left wing than the Labor Party. They would be quite happy to close down all industry and want to open the borders for all who want to live here. They have no concept of managing debt and believe in throwing money at everything. They were very influential in Tasmania and turned that state into a basket case. I'm told their manifesto is based on the European Communist Party. Anyone who is taken in by their seemingly very noble environmental views, is very mistaken and would be voting for a dangerous Party.
Green parties have been in government in various countries all across Europe.
I don't know why you would assume that allegations made about the Greens in Australia would be more relevant than the successes and failures of the more similar, closer, European governments with the Greens as a coalition member.
Did you get back to me on the company with 10 employees? I don't know if I missed it.
We've got Greens in Bristol, a pretty hypocritical bunch locally, no ideas how bad they are elsewhere. Have heard horror stories from Brighton though.
On one hand say they want a living wage on the other hand one of their councillors thinks his £32,000 per year is a low wage (as assistant mayor) and complains about it.
One day going out and telling council house tenants that they shouldn't be allowed to buy their council houses as it will reduce social housing stock, the next day its announced that the previous year a local green councillor bought a council house at a knockdown price (£185,000) for cash.
They don't want growth unless its 'sustainable' and therefore have tried to vote down large amounts of City Deal funding from central government, at a time when council is needing cash desperately.
They also voted to raise council tax, not exactly on the side of the low paid.
The greens in Brighton council have basically destroyed their own party's credibility. Brighton was meant to be the place where they were going to show the country how much better the Green Party is and they've royally screwed it up.
The green's economic policies are bizarre, basically let's spend ridiculous amounts of money and get into a shed load of debt which will put significant strain on the economy. But don't worry, we'll pay for it all by taxing the shit out of anyone who (somehow) makes any money in this hugely toxic economic environment.
Anti Fracking is the big negative for me with The Greens.
It's really going to turn our economy around and ensure the lights don't go out over the next thirty years.
I don't know about the UK, but in Australia the Greens are far more left wing than the Labor Party. They would be quite happy to close down all industry and want to open the borders for all who want to live here. They have no concept of managing debt and believe in throwing money at everything. They were very influential in Tasmania and turned that state into a basket case. I'm told their manifesto is based on the European Communist Party. Anyone who is taken in by their seemingly very noble environmental views, is very mistaken and would be voting for a dangerous Party.
Green parties have been in government in various countries all across Europe.
I don't know why you would assume that allegations made about the Greens in Australia would be more relevant than the successes and failures of the more similar, closer, European governments with the Greens as a coalition member.
Did you get back to me on the company with 10 employees? I don't know if I missed it.
I didn't, because I thought I had already made the point in a previous post. The answer is so glaringly obvious that I didn't feel the need to state it again. If someone retires from a company with ten employees, a vacancy becomes available and is filled by somebody who has been out of work. If you stop the influx of immigrant workers, the effect is that the dole queue reduces over time. Therefore the welfare money saved on paying benefits to the the unemployed can instead go towards paying decent pensions for people who have worked hard and deserve to retire comfortably. The Greens movement is the same worldwide, they have the same agenda, Agenda 21, a global Government administered by the UN. As I said, they are dangerous, but people who aren't clued up, vote for them as a protest vote and because they hug trees and save whales. Are you a Green IA?
Some interesting points on Newsnight... Heseltine interview very powerful - "Cameron should stick to his guns...UKIP have no policies...hidden racist agenda...I wonder where the national front vote went?!" And 50% of the 2009 UKIP vote returned to its home ground in 2010. It's going to be an interesting and potentially nasty run up to the next election.
Anti Fracking is the big negative for me with The Greens.
It's really going to turn our economy around and ensure the lights don't go out over the next thirty years.
I don't know about the UK, but in Australia the Greens are far more left wing than the Labor Party. They would be quite happy to close down all industry and want to open the borders for all who want to live here. They have no concept of managing debt and believe in throwing money at everything. They were very influential in Tasmania and turned that state into a basket case. I'm told their manifesto is based on the European Communist Party. Anyone who is taken in by their seemingly very noble environmental views, is very mistaken and would be voting for a dangerous Party.
Green parties have been in government in various countries all across Europe.
I don't know why you would assume that allegations made about the Greens in Australia would be more relevant than the successes and failures of the more similar, closer, European governments with the Greens as a coalition member.
Did you get back to me on the company with 10 employees? I don't know if I missed it.
I didn't, because I thought I had already made the point in a previous post. The answer is so glaringly obvious that I didn't feel the need to state it again. If someone retires from a company with ten employees, a vacancy becomes available and is filled by somebody who has been out of work. If you stop the influx of immigrant workers, the effect is that the dole queue reduces over time. Therefore the welfare money saved on paying benefits to the the unemployed can instead go towards paying decent pensions for people who have worked hard and deserve to retire comfortably. The Greens movement is the same worldwide, they have the same agenda, Agenda 21, a global Government administered by the UN. As I said, they are dangerous, but people who aren't clued up, vote for them as a protest vote and because they hug trees and save whales. Are you a Green IA?
Assuming unemployed people can fit easily into the vacancies created, you could maybe do it for a couple of years, but risk putting huge inflationary pressure on the economy after a while. The BoE's estimate for non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment is about 5%. Estimates of 'full employment level of unemployment' are around 3%. That's not to say 3-5% of the population sitting on the dole all year round, but at any given time, 3-5% of the population between jobs, at the end of their contract, etc.
If unemployment goes much below 5%, it puts strong upward pressure on wages and prices. Increasing wages are a Good Thing, but the worry is that they might harm competitiveness. Accelerating inflation rates, like you would see in that scenario, could affect companies' ability to trade and compete on the international stage, and multinationals with no particular ties to the UK might decide to move off.
No. I'm not a Green voter. I don't think I ever would vote for them. But I put far more stock in evidence of their failures in Bristol and Brighton (because that's a fair indication of the UK Green party) than I do in what someone says about another green party on the other side of the planet. I had forgotten they won the Brighton council last time out, which is why I mentioned previous European governments. If I moved to Australia, I would then be more interested in the successes or failures of Australian party policies than UK/Europe. That was my point.
The green's economic policies are bizarre, basically let's spend ridiculous amounts of money and get into a shed load of debt which will put significant strain on the economy. But don't worry, we'll pay for it all by taxing the shit out of anyone who (somehow) makes any money in this hugely toxic economic environment.
Hmm.
Link me to evidence showing this is all the case, and I'll believe it. Obviously, tax is a principle we can't abandon, with no other organised means of supporting the needs of society - so it'd have to take a fairly staggering tax rate to rattle me. What were they spending money on?
I live in Brighton. The greens have fucked everything up. Raising council taxes, making the town centre 20 mph at great expense (road signs, markings, etc) when it's legally unenforceable, playing hardball with the unions when the bin men went on strike and causing the streets to be full of refuse last summer before doing a u-turn, proposing a council budget so naive that the labour and tory councillors joined forces to argue how unsustainable it was... I could go on.
I know a lot of people who have voted green over the last few years who are going back to Labour next election. Yes Miliband is a clown and yes Bliar casts a shadow over the party but at least they know how to run things more than the greens...
(btw Caroline Lucas was famously in the county for the fracking arrest but how often has she been seen here apart from then? Brighton was an easy seat and while the right-on people here have been hoodwinked once I don't think it will happen again)
Well, if the Greens are as bad as you say (and I do think they've messed up by focusing too hard on driving/environment-related issues rather than social ones, hence why I'm a little reticent about them), then as I feared I have nobody to vote for at the next GE. I'd like a party with intelligence, heart and a genuinely civic motivation. A party that can run the numbers and then help construct a society where nobody is left behind and where children are brought up to enjoy and respect the possibilities of knowledge, not regard education as the enemy.
I don't believe this party really exists right now. Elements of the Greens approach it, but having experienced them first-hand (or at least the Young Greens) I saw myself that as individuals they were more personally ambitious and petty than I'd hoped - and less intelligent, too.
I still don't think fracking is a particularly great idea. Yes, it'll make a lot of money for a very few already-wealthy tycoon sorts, and it'll create a little employment, but at the potential cost of accelerating our rural decline? There are other avenues we could afford to explore first, although can we resist the energy companies' lobbying?
Unfortunately the only credible party I think that represents the views you've posted (which are shared with mine on the whole) are Labour, and this is from someone who tore up their membership card a couple of years ago.
The Greens are a wasted vote... unfortunately, going by policies alone, the only credible alternative is Labour (in theory the Lib Dems too but as we've seen they're too happy to get in bed with the tories and sell their principles).
A shame but from where I'm sat the lesser of two evils...
I think the Labour Party has allowed nefarious, corporatist elements to permeate its executive level, and for all the integrity of many of its MPs and activists won't be the same unless it undergoes either schism or revolution. I wrote of this phenomenon a few pages ago, in fact; it's a phenomenon which makes it very hard for me to vote. Vote I still shall, probably. I have no idea for whom.
Fracking is a very dangerous issue for the Conservatives in particular because it is taking place in many of their rural heartlands and pits their traditional supporters against some serious, serious corporate muscle.
Now, like all political parties (except the Greens) the Tories sure do love them a nice chunk of corporate money in the form of 'donations' which - of course - have no influence on future policy. Ahem.
The fracking industry in the US has basically bought both sides of politics at national, state and local level which means that if your farm or house is affected by fracking then guess what? You're f-----d.
Will be fascinating to see how this plays out in the UK.
Anti Fracking is the big negative for me with The Greens.
It's really going to turn our economy around and ensure the lights don't go out over the next thirty years.
I don't know about the UK, but in Australia the Greens are far more left wing than the Labor Party. They would be quite happy to close down all industry and want to open the borders for all who want to live here. They have no concept of managing debt and believe in throwing money at everything. They were very influential in Tasmania and turned that state into a basket case. I'm told their manifesto is based on the European Communist Party. Anyone who is taken in by their seemingly very noble environmental views, is very mistaken and would be voting for a dangerous Party.
Green parties have been in government in various countries all across Europe.
I don't know why you would assume that allegations made about the Greens in Australia would be more relevant than the successes and failures of the more similar, closer, European governments with the Greens as a coalition member.
Did you get back to me on the company with 10 employees? I don't know if I missed it.
I didn't, because I thought I had already made the point in a previous post. The answer is so glaringly obvious that I didn't feel the need to state it again. If someone retires from a company with ten employees, a vacancy becomes available and is filled by somebody who has been out of work. If you stop the influx of immigrant workers, the effect is that the dole queue reduces over time. Therefore the welfare money saved on paying benefits to the the unemployed can instead go towards paying decent pensions for people who have worked hard and deserve to retire comfortably. The Greens movement is the same worldwide, they have the same agenda, Agenda 21, a global Government administered by the UN. As I said, they are dangerous, but people who aren't clued up, vote for them as a protest vote and because they hug trees and save whales. Are you a Green IA?
Assuming unemployed people can fit easily into the vacancies created, you could maybe do it for a couple of years, but risk putting huge inflationary pressure on the economy after a while. The BoE's estimate for non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment is about 5%. Estimates of 'full employment level of unemployment' are around 3%. That's not to say 3-5% of the population sitting on the dole all year round, but at any given time, 3-5% of the population between jobs, at the end of their contract, etc.
If unemployment goes much below 5%, it puts strong upward pressure on wages and prices. Increasing wages are a Good Thing, but the worry is that they might harm competitiveness. Accelerating inflation rates, like you would see in that scenario, could affect companies' ability to trade and compete on the international stage, and multinationals with no particular ties to the UK might decide to move off.
No. I'm not a Green voter. I don't think I ever would vote for them. But I put far more stock in evidence of their failures in Bristol and Brighton (because that's a fair indication of the UK Green party) than I do in what someone says about another green party on the other side of the planet. I had forgotten they won the Brighton council last time out, which is why I mentioned previous European governments. If I moved to Australia, I would then be more interested in the successes or failures of Australian party policies than UK/Europe. That was my point.
Manners cost nothing. I've not been rude to you.
Excuse me IA, but where exactly have I lacked manners or been rude to you? If anyone has been rude it was you with this veiled demand of me "Did you get back to me on the company with 10 employees? I don't know if I missed it". I didn't appreciate the sarcastic tone and I'm not obliged to "get back" to you or anyone if I feel I am wasting my time in doing so. As it happened I did take the time at 3am (Australian time) this morning to answer your question, a question that I felt I had previously addressed. I am always happy to state my case and debate anything in which I have strong opinions. It's obvious that you and I have completely opposite views, which is fine. This difference is that I don't dig you out on every post of yours that I happen to disagree with.
The fracking argument is indeed a very interesting one. In the US there is a whole lot of space, but when it comes to places like Kent, then I don't see how how the US experience can be comparable. Somehow it just doesn't seem like a good idea. I've read both sides of the argument and get even more confused. But at a purely instinctive level, cracking up the ground under your house just doesn't appeal at all. How can they be certain that the ground water will not be contaminated? What happens if your house does experience subsidence, how under earth will you be able to prove it was or wasn't due to fracking? The NIMBY's are going to go ballistic and can you honestly say that you would feel happy if they were fracking near your house? Would you feel happy that a French company will be doing the fracking when it is banned from carrying out fracking in France. It looks like a big vote loser to me.
"The answer is so glaringly obvious" "people who aren't clued up, vote for them as a protest vote and because they hug trees and save whales. Are you a Green IA?"
I take those lines as insults.
All I had asked was if you did respond, because I could have missed it. I didn't demand an answer - I thought you might have already answered it.
Yes, seems we disagree. You have a hard-left economic line on the labour market.
Putting to one side the newspaper involved and the fact the figures might not be 100% - how on earth can this be a good idea and a good use of this Country's money.
The EU might bring a lot of benefits but policies like these completely undermine them. Madness.
"The answer is so glaringly obvious" "people who aren't clued up, vote for them as a protest vote and because they hug trees and save whales. Are you a Green IA?"
I take those lines as insults.
All I had asked was if you did respond, because I could have missed it. I didn't demand an answer - I thought you might have already answered it.
Yes, seems we disagree. You have a hard-left economic line on the labour market.
Well it's not difficult to read the thread to check whether I'd answered or not. That's exactly what I'd have done before framing the question in such a sarcastic manner(not that I would ever do such a thing). It seemed to me that you knew I hadn't responded, hence the reason you came back with another dig.
Me, hard left! Now that is deeply offensive to me.
The green's economic policies are bizarre, basically let's spend ridiculous amounts of money and get into a shed load of debt which will put significant strain on the economy. But don't worry, we'll pay for it all by taxing the shit out of anyone who (somehow) makes any money in this hugely toxic economic environment.
Hmm.
Link me to evidence showing this is all the case, and I'll believe it. Obviously, tax is a principle we can't abandon, with no other organised means of supporting the needs of society - so it'd have to take a fairly staggering tax rate to rattle me. What were they spending money on?
have a gander for yourself, plucking numbers out of the air like "oh, to increase pensions we'd have to find £40 billion from somewhere, but dont worry, pensioners will pay loads of tax, basically making the increase in pensions pointless and corporations will pay a lot more national insurance to pay for it".
Newsnight (again) several serious commentators mirror comments expressed on Charlton Life and suggest that 25% vote for UKIP / national front (in France) might bring some much needed urgency to the debate around EU reform - over governance and pulling away from areas which should be left to national governments.
Putting to one side the newspaper involved and the fact the figures might not be 100% - how on earth can this be a good idea and a good use of this Country's money.
The EU might bring a lot of benefits but policies like these completely undermine them. Madness.
I broke my rule of never giving that newspaper's website a hit to read this. They don't tell us how many people in the UK are claiming benefits from elsewhere in the EU, which would be useful to give us a comparison. It also says that child benefit is paid to people whose children and families are not in the UK, so if you think about it, their kids are not costing the UK taxpayer money to school and their families are not using the health care system. I doubt very much that Mr. Farage would rather have them bring the whole family over with them ( unless it's their German wife ;-) )?
I also assume that UK nationals living in other EU countries are included in those child benefit figures - in which case I would guess over half the 202 families in Portugal they mention are British - but that is just a guess?
It's still not an ideal situation, I can't argue with that, but as with all newspapers, the story is slightly skewed to fit their agenda..
As an aside I would also be interested to find out how much child benefit is paid to the richest 20% of people in the UK?
Comments
Jurassic shale of the Weald Basin: resource estimation report
"The British Geological Survey (BGS) in association with the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has completed an estimate for the amount of shale oil and shale gas in the Weald Basin in south-east England; published 23 May 2014.
The estimate is in the form of a range to reflect geological uncertainty. The range of shale oil in place is estimated to be between 2.20 and 8.57 billion barrels (bbl) or 293 and 1143 million tonnes, but the central estimate for the resource is 4.4 billion bbl or 591 million tonnes.
No significant gas resource is recognised using the current geological model. This is mainly because the shale is not thought to have reached the geological maturity required to generate gas.
The figure for oil represents the total amount of oil present in the rocks. It is not known what percentage of the oil present in the shale could be commercially extracted. In order to estimate the shale oil reserve, drilling and testing of new wells will be required to give a better idea of oil production rates.
In addition, non-geological factors such as oil price, operating costs and the scale of development agreed by the local planning system will affect the amount of oil produced.
Shale oil clearly has potential in Britain but it will require geological and engineering expertise, investment and protection of the environment. It will also need organisations like the BGS to play their part in providing up to date and accurate information on resources and the environment to the public, industry and government".
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/shalegas/
Which, I'm afraid, is along way from Addickted's claim that:
"It's really going to turn our economy around and ensure the lights don't go out over the next thirty years".
And that's without taking into account the economic desirability or the environmental impact of using any oil resourses there might be to run power stations.
I don't know why you would assume that allegations made about the Greens in Australia would be more relevant than the successes and failures of the more similar, closer, European governments with the Greens as a coalition member.
Did you get back to me on the company with 10 employees? I don't know if I missed it.
On one hand say they want a living wage on the other hand one of their councillors thinks his £32,000 per year is a low wage (as assistant mayor) and complains about it.
One day going out and telling council house tenants that they shouldn't be allowed to buy their council houses as it will reduce social housing stock, the next day its announced that the previous year a local green councillor bought a council house at a knockdown price (£185,000) for cash.
They don't want growth unless its 'sustainable' and therefore have tried to vote down large amounts of City Deal funding from central government, at a time when council is needing cash desperately.
They also voted to raise council tax, not exactly on the side of the low paid.
The green's economic policies are bizarre, basically let's spend ridiculous amounts of money and get into a shed load of debt which will put significant strain on the economy. But don't worry, we'll pay for it all by taxing the shit out of anyone who (somehow) makes any money in this hugely toxic economic environment.
No thanks.
They're as dangerous as UKIP.
And 50% of the 2009 UKIP vote returned to its home ground in 2010.
It's going to be an interesting and potentially nasty run up to the next election.
ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/april-2014/statistical-bulletin.html
Over 9% of all people in the UK between 16 and 64 are in the oldest 5 years - 60 to 64 - so likely close to retirement.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom
Assuming unemployed people can fit easily into the vacancies created, you could maybe do it for a couple of years, but risk putting huge inflationary pressure on the economy after a while. The BoE's estimate for non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment is about 5%. Estimates of 'full employment level of unemployment' are around 3%. That's not to say 3-5% of the population sitting on the dole all year round, but at any given time, 3-5% of the population between jobs, at the end of their contract, etc.
If unemployment goes much below 5%, it puts strong upward pressure on wages and prices. Increasing wages are a Good Thing, but the worry is that they might harm competitiveness. Accelerating inflation rates, like you would see in that scenario, could affect companies' ability to trade and compete on the international stage, and multinationals with no particular ties to the UK might decide to move off.
And all the while, you have a population that is aging rapidly. That's not just coming from me - the Tory-led Treasury says that an independent Scotland would need to rapidly increase immigration to achieve a balance between pensioners and working people. Scotland's demographics are much worse than the UK's as a whole, but still the point remains if you believe the UK's population is aging.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/independent-scotland-would-need-500000-immigrants-to-balance-workers-and-pensioners-says-treasury-9430082.html
No. I'm not a Green voter. I don't think I ever would vote for them. But I put far more stock in evidence of their failures in Bristol and Brighton (because that's a fair indication of the UK Green party) than I do in what someone says about another green party on the other side of the planet. I had forgotten they won the Brighton council last time out, which is why I mentioned previous European governments. If I moved to Australia, I would then be more interested in the successes or failures of Australian party policies than UK/Europe. That was my point.
Manners cost nothing. I've not been rude to you.
Link me to evidence showing this is all the case, and I'll believe it. Obviously, tax is a principle we can't abandon, with no other organised means of supporting the needs of society - so it'd have to take a fairly staggering tax rate to rattle me. What were they spending money on?
I know a lot of people who have voted green over the last few years who are going back to Labour next election. Yes Miliband is a clown and yes Bliar casts a shadow over the party but at least they know how to run things more than the greens...
(btw Caroline Lucas was famously in the county for the fracking arrest but how often has she been seen here apart from then? Brighton was an easy seat and while the right-on people here have been hoodwinked once I don't think it will happen again)
I don't believe this party really exists right now. Elements of the Greens approach it, but having experienced them first-hand (or at least the Young Greens) I saw myself that as individuals they were more personally ambitious and petty than I'd hoped - and less intelligent, too.
I still don't think fracking is a particularly great idea. Yes, it'll make a lot of money for a very few already-wealthy tycoon sorts, and it'll create a little employment, but at the potential cost of accelerating our rural decline? There are other avenues we could afford to explore first, although can we resist the energy companies' lobbying?
Unfortunately the only credible party I think that represents the views you've posted (which are shared with mine on the whole) are Labour, and this is from someone who tore up their membership card a couple of years ago.
The Greens are a wasted vote... unfortunately, going by policies alone, the only credible alternative is Labour (in theory the Lib Dems too but as we've seen they're too happy to get in bed with the tories and sell their principles).
A shame but from where I'm sat the lesser of two evils...
Now, like all political parties (except the Greens) the Tories sure do love them a nice chunk of corporate money in the form of 'donations' which - of course - have no influence on future policy. Ahem.
The fracking industry in the US has basically bought both sides of politics at national, state and local level which means that if your farm or house is affected by fracking then guess what? You're f-----d.
Will be fascinating to see how this plays out in the UK.
I didn't appreciate the sarcastic tone and I'm not obliged to "get back" to you or anyone if I feel I am wasting my time in doing so. As it happened I did take the time at 3am (Australian time) this morning to answer your question, a question that I felt I had previously addressed. I am always happy to state my case and debate anything in which I have strong opinions. It's obvious that you and I have completely opposite views, which is fine. This difference is that I don't dig you out on every post of yours that I happen to disagree with.
"people who aren't clued up, vote for them as a protest vote and because they hug trees and save whales. Are you a Green IA?"
I take those lines as insults.
All I had asked was if you did respond, because I could have missed it. I didn't demand an answer - I thought you might have already answered it.
Yes, seems we disagree. You have a hard-left economic line on the labour market.
Putting to one side the newspaper involved and the fact the figures might not be 100% - how on earth can this be a good idea and a good use of this Country's money.
The EU might bring a lot of benefits but policies like these completely undermine them. Madness.
Me, hard left! Now that is deeply offensive to me.
have a gander for yourself, plucking numbers out of the air like "oh, to increase pensions we'd have to find £40 billion from somewhere, but dont worry, pensioners will pay loads of tax, basically making the increase in pensions pointless and corporations will pay a lot more national insurance to pay for it".
I also assume that UK nationals living in other EU countries are included in those child benefit figures - in which case I would guess over half the 202 families in Portugal they mention are British - but that is just a guess?
It's still not an ideal situation, I can't argue with that, but as with all newspapers, the story is slightly skewed to fit their agenda..
As an aside I would also be interested to find out how much child benefit is paid to the richest 20% of people in the UK?