The Politics Thread

[Bruce Rioja]

See. Saved up his bus fare to grope middle-aged women on our buses.

They should be made to stick to their own buses. And groping their own middle-aged women, and leave ours for us to grope.

British groping for British hands!

Robbed his buzzie, shirley?!

[Lord Kangana]

Apologies for the oversight!

[Athers]

Today is a good example but in general I can't remember the last time I read an article about any potential or actual government policy without a Shadow response near the bottom going off on one about "being worse off" and "tax cuts for millionaires".

Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Chris Leslie said that "while millions of ordinary working people are worse off under the Tories", Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron were "paving the way for yet another top rate tax cut for millionaires".

He said the reason more spending cuts were needed was because Mr Osborne's "failure on growth and living standards since 2010 has led to his failure to balance the books".

"What we need is Labour's plan to earn our way to higher living standards for all, tackle the cost-of-living crisis and get the deficit down in a fairer way."

What plan?

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Bish will be along in a minute to explain it to you. Will might join in too. Expect phrases such as "class war" to be bantered around.

[Bijou Bob]

I see solicitors and Barristers have downed tools today in protest at the proposed shortening of the gravy train that is legal aid.

It got me thinking. At the heart of it, this is about a group of professional people fighting to maintain their income levels. Should it really matter that the income levels we are talking about are way higher than most enjoy? Is the principle the same as it would be for other public sector workers for example?

[BWFC_Insane]

I see solicitors and Barristers have downed tools today in protest at the proposed shortening of the gravy train that is legal aid.

It got me thinking. At the heart of it, this is about a group of professional people fighting to maintain their income levels. Should it really matter that the income levels we are talking about are way higher than most enjoy? Is the principle the same as it would be for other public sector workers for example?

Look at the figures, legal aid barristers and solicitors tend to not be very wealthy. In fact....

The CBA said 60 per cent of ‘median’ barristers doing legal aid work earned an average of £37,000 per year after expenses and many were working for less than £25,000 before tax.

And remember that is for highly qualified people who have done their fair share (and more) of education.

In fact I know a guy who used to do legal aid immigration law. Worked ridiculous hours for a salary of sub £30,000 a year.

[Bijou Bob]

Which begs the question where all that money is going. Personally, I've never met a defence brief who wasn't very well off, but there are two more important principles at stake for me:

1. The reform of an archaic system of justice
2. The reform of a system that allows a serial offender to claim legal aid for representation 30, 40, 50 times.

[Beefheart]

I see solicitors and Barristers have downed tools today in protest at the proposed shortening of the gravy train that is legal aid.

It got me thinking. At the heart of it, this is about a group of professional people fighting to maintain their income levels. Should it really matter that the income levels we are talking about are way higher than most enjoy? Is the principle the same as it would be for other public sector workers for example?

Look at the figures, legal aid barristers and solicitors tend to not be very wealthy. In fact....

The CBA said 60 per cent of ‘median’ barristers doing legal aid work earned an average of £37,000 per year after expenses and many were working for less than £25,000 before tax.

And remember that is for highly qualified people who have done their fair share (and more) of education.

In fact I know a guy who used to do legal aid immigration law. Worked ridiculous hours for a salary of sub £30,000 a year.

I hear what's given as their average earnings is what they 'bill', so won't include the cost of their own staff etc and so the top line is somewhat misleading.

[thebish]

Bish will be along in a minute to explain it to you. Will might join in too. Expect phrases such as "class war" to be bantered around.

eh? I don't believe I have ever uttered the phrase "class war" in my life.

as for labour's plan - i haven't the foggiest - and I don't think they do either (I don't think they have one yet) - how you expect ME to explain it is beyond me - nor why you dragged me into this!

boooooooooooooooooooooooooo to zulu!!!

[Athers]

A mate of mine is a barrister and does tell me that while some of the money he's awarded in individual cases can sound good (or be just randomly assigned by the judge?!), his chambers just take a big chunk, then as he's self employed there's all his other costs such as travel, transport, IT, 'opportunity cost' of his time travelling and spent doing work for free and after the various taxes that he's not earning that incredibly.

I believe one issue with the removal of legal aid is an increase in people trying to represent themselves, but that just takes the court forever as all procedures have to be explained every five minutes?

[Harry Genshaw]

Which begs the question where all that money is going. Personally, I've never met a defence brief who wasn't very well off, but there are two more important principles at stake for me:

1. The reform of an archaic system of justice
2. The reform of a system that allows a serial offender to claim legal aid for representation 30, 40, 50 times.

3. The reform of a system that allowed El Hadji Diouf to claim legal aid whilst earning £30k a week

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Bish will be along in a minute to explain it to you. Will might join in too. Expect phrases such as "class war" to be bantered around.

eh? I don't believe I have ever uttered the phrase "class war" in my life.

as for labour's plan - i haven't the foggiest - and I don't think they do either (I don't think they have one yet) - how you expect ME to explain it is beyond me - nor why you dragged me into this!

boooooooooooooooooooooooooo to zulu!!!

I think we can safely call that a nibble.

[Prufrock]

If you do legal aid criminal work you've every chance of taking home about 12k a year for the first few years, then raising some but not astronomically. There are barristers who do very , very well, and barristers who do only legal aid work. There isn't much crossover.

The legal aid reforms have been pathetically poorly thought through. Sooooo much time wasted because people represent themselves and haven't a bastard clue what is going on.

Of course like anywhere I've no doubt savings could be made, but an effective justice system costs money.

People who solely do legal aid work aside, its rare you'll find a barrister who isn't well paid, but they aren't as well paid as you think.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Without context, it's meaningless!

It's a ratio; it doesn't need units. If a cordial bottle says four parts water to one part concentrate, it doesn't matter what your units are! Whether it's litres or pints it's the same.

Playground again

If it says 4:1 it's meaningless. If, on the other hand, it says 4:1 water to concentrated cordial, then it gives me information. The graph bish so kindly provided did not specify enough of what went to what in order to give me the ratio... Nerrrr

[thebish]

Without context, it's meaningless!

It's a ratio; it doesn't need units. If a cordial bottle says four parts water to one part concentrate, it doesn't matter what your units are! Whether it's litres or pints it's the same.

Playground again

If it says 4:1 it's meaningless. If, on the other hand, it says 4:1 water to concentrated cordial, then it gives me information. The graph bish so kindly provided did not specify enough of what went to what in order to give me the ratio... Nerrrr

which is why i wrote below it what the ratio was. problem?

[Lord Kangana]

Brilliant plan though isn't it? Erode our rights just enough to make us have to have recourse to the law, then whip up public ire at the cost of legal aid. Legal aid w*nkers! This country is going to the dogs because of the law!

To be fair, though, now they've cottoned on that there are enough idiots out there to support them that they can just take away all our rights, and bar any reasonable access to justice. Three cheers.

Personally, I'm looking forward to going bankrupt when my mobile gives me cancer. What a progressive and enlightened country we live in.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Without context, it's meaningless!

It's a ratio; it doesn't need units. If a cordial bottle says four parts water to one part concentrate, it doesn't matter what your units are! Whether it's litres or pints it's the same.

Playground again

If it says 4:1 it's meaningless. If, on the other hand, it says 4:1 water to concentrated cordial, then it gives me information. The graph bish so kindly provided did not specify enough of what went to what in order to give me the ratio... Nerrrr

which is why i wrote below it what the ratio was. problem?

Yes. The problem is the ratio was against, and I quote in full, "the last gross earnings in the first full year of unemployment"
That, if you examine it carefully, is a statement that is either:
1. Wrong
2. Meaningless
3. or deliberately designed to mislead.

Being a mathematician, I'm sure you'll work out where I'm coming from.

[thebish]

if you understood it was a ratio - why did you ask for a unit? that confuses a mathematician such as me...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

if you understood it was a ratio - why did you ask for a unit? that confuses a mathematician such as me...

A ratio is a comparison of two units. One of the units quoted is, as pointed out, meaningless, which is why I asked for clarification of the units involved in the computation of the ratio...

[thebish]

if you understood it was a ratio - why did you ask for a unit? that confuses a mathematician such as me...

A ratio is a comparison of two units. One of the units quoted is, as pointed out, meaningless, which is why I asked for clarification of the units involved in the computation of the ratio...

if it is a measure of earnings - then the unit will be the currency of the particular country in question. i think that's fairly self explanatory. it'll be the same unit of currency that the benefits are paid in - again - different for each country. when you make a ratio out of both of those numbers - the unity becomes meaningless - because it is a ratio.