"Not doubting her integrity but hard to see why Baroness Butler Sloss would want to accept a role so many regard as conflicted at the outset 8:51am - 9 Jul 14"
Does Cameron? I'd accept that he's a tolerant man who wants the country to do well and basically sees himself as a team leader and coordinator with few views on what oughr to happen in the medium term. He allows more ideological people (Osborne on the size of the state, Gove on schools structure and even individual books, the 2010 health team on NHS restructuring, IDS on Universal Credit) to pursue their agendas, neither obviously encouraging or discouraging them except when they fight each other. Whether that's really good leadership is debatable: the weakness is that the overall sense is that we're going nowhere in particular but doing drastic things when a particular minister wants them. One can't accuse him of Blairite dominance, but it feels quite random.
....
Nick, I hate to break the news to you, but Cameron wants Gove to sort out education, IDS to sort out welfare, Osborne to sort out the economy, and the NHS to become more efficient. This is not individual ministers pursuing their own agendas, it is ministers pursuing the government's agenda, and is certainly not 'ideological'. You are right in a sense that Cameron sees himself as a team leader and coordinator: that is precisely his strength. He and his colleagues have identified the four great challenges you describe, and he is giving talented ministers time and space to get on with tackling them, without interfering from his sofa on a day-to-day basis as Blair so hopelessly did. That is not 'going nowhere particular', it is good government.
Yes the Tories are certainly sorting out the economy, NHS, welfare and education.
Sorting out in the sense the Kray twins would "sort out" local diffculties.
Each one of those has been a disaster in Tory hands.
With the NHS at the top following the hideously inept and unwanted reorganisation, education not far behind dragged down by the sheer idiocy of the Free Schools policy, welfare now more expensive than ever and the economy showing clear signs of rightwing negelect.
That is just fantasy. Even labour in their 2010 manifesto promised 20 billion of economy savings (cuts in real terms spending to you and me) in the NHS and did not promise to increase its budget in real terms. The disasters of Stafford hardly suggests the NHS was safe with Labour. Free schools are only a bad idea if you are a left wing demagogue intent on bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator and Labour parked millions on welfare rather than get them to work and instead relied in imported labour.
I have a lot of time for Frank Field, but I do wonder at the bizarre logic here (which Miliband seems to share). The remedy for too much immigration is apparently to increase wages.
But, if you increase wages, you make it more attractive for workers from the EU to come here. That increases, not reduces, the competition which young British workers would face in applying for jobs, thereby increasing unemployment even if the wage increase doesn't of itself reduce the number of jobs which are economic for employers to provide. How on earth does that solve the problem?
The most interesting analysis I've seen recently was about education, which pointed out that the obsession with % of students getting 5 A-C grades meant schools were basically just forgetting about kids who were unlikely to reach that standard: why waste resources on kids that don't help you in the rankings? And this meant that 25-40% of the kids leaving school really had very poor literacy and skills relative to EU immigrants.
Whether this is right or not, I don't know. But it's a plausible hypothesis.
That's absolutely what we see. In addition there is a huge amount of focus on kids at the C/D boundary to the detriment of both the A/Bs and the D/Es. It's an area that we spend a huge amount of effort on trying to address.
Those polls over recent days showing Labour having doubled its lead over the Tories, appears credible enough, especially with similar figures overnight from YouGov. The curious thing, at least to me is that at face value, there appears to have been a straight switch of 2%-3% from Conservative to Labour, whereas the level of support for the LibDems and UKIP seems almost unchanged.
I reckon Dossiergate could have something to do with this. Any whiff of political shenanigans is bound to affect the incumbent party more than the opposition IMHO.
But the lesson from history is the Tories are very successful when they occupy the centre right and right. But that a right-only party is not successful in the UK.
Mr Blair said of the Conservative Party:
"Their right isn’t like our left. They believe they can win from the right in a way Labour could never do from the left and they are correct in that."
You are right, it doesn't solve the problem. The only way to solve it is to stop mass immigration of cheap labour.
If any of the recent parties of government really cared about the English working class, they would do it.
I'm suspicious of that solution too, though. It's basically the same argument used in the 1970s about imported cars: the way to help the UK car industry was to put up more barriers so people would be forced to buy rubbish Austins rather than reliable Toyotas. You're basically arguing that employers should be forced to employ English workers rather than better-motivated and better-educated EU immigrants. History suggests that competition is a good thing in the long run, and protectionism leads to decline.
I accept of course that the analogy is not perfect: we're talking about people here, not goods, and there are knock-on effects to immigration in terms of infrastructure, housing, schools, etc, and of course cultural cohesiveness. All the same, putting up barriers is really addressing the symptom, not the cause.
If you don't address the question of why British employers choose to employ foreigners at a multiple of minimum wage in London, then you are attempting - France-style - to legislate against the symptoms.
The best sort of politician is the one who would say "I have no set policies, only a few ideas which I will check by reference to experts and then by experience. If the evidence shows they are wrong, then I will change them."
Unfortunately, they would never be selected or elected, even if they stood as an independent. So we are stuck with the idealogues who will aim by any means possible to have their policies enacted, or those only concerned with power for its own sake. These are the people who have the determination to succeed in politics.
But there are many in the former category. A good example ... A political union for Europe is obviously desirable but we'd better not say so immediately in case they take fright - let's pretend it's just a common market.
But it's not an unusual mindset. I recall seeing a quotation by one of the Popes asking his enemies to even consider that they might be mistaken. Hmm. I thought, pot certainly recognises kettle there.
I have a lot of time for Frank Field, but I do wonder at the bizarre logic here (which Miliband seems to share). The remedy for too much immigration is apparently to increase wages.
But, if you increase wages, you make it more attractive for workers from the EU to come here. That increases, not reduces, the competition which young British workers would face in applying for jobs, thereby increasing unemployment even if the wage increase doesn't of itself reduce the number of jobs which are economic for employers to provide. How on earth does that solve the problem?
Mr Field is also in favour of reducing immigration.
You are right, it doesn't solve the problem. The only way to solve it is to stop mass immigration of cheap labour.
If any of the recent parties of government really cared about the English working class, they would do it.
I'm suspicious of that solution too, though. It's basically the same argument used in the 1970s about imported cars: the way to help the UK car industry was to put up more barriers so people would be forced to buy rubbish Austins rather than reliable Toyotas. You're basically arguing that employers should be forced to employ English workers rather than better-motivated and better-educated EU immigrants. History suggests that competition is a good thing in the long run, and protectionism leads to decline.
I accept of course that the analogy is not perfect: we're talking about people here, not goods, and there are knock-on effects to immigration in terms of infrastructure, housing, schools, etc, and of course cultural cohesiveness. All the same, putting up barriers is really addressing the symptom, not the cause.
If you don't address the question of why British employers choose to employ foreigners at a multiple of minimum wage in London, then you are attempting - France-style - to legislate against the symptoms.
Because if you come from a low income country the real wage you're earning is a lot more than if you're from the UK, and as a result you'll put up with a lot more crap for that incentive?
You are right, it doesn't solve the problem. The only way to solve it is to stop mass immigration of cheap labour.
If any of the recent parties of government really cared about the English working class, they would do it.
I'm suspicious of that solution too, though. It's basically the same argument used in the 1970s about imported cars: the way to help the UK car industry was to put up more barriers so people would be forced to buy rubbish Austins rather than reliable Toyotas. You're basically arguing that employers should be forced to employ English workers rather than better-motivated and better-educated EU immigrants. History suggests that competition is a good thing in the long run, and protectionism leads to decline.
I accept of course that the analogy is not perfect: we're talking about people here, not goods, and there are knock-on effects to immigration in terms of infrastructure, housing, schools, etc, and of course cultural cohesiveness. All the same, putting up barriers is really addressing the symptom, not the cause.
In an ideal world young English people would be sufficiently well-educated to compete for employment in other countries, increasing emigration.
I really did think that Cameron's target of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands was a politicians way of not addressing what the most vocal people were upset by [non-English people immigrating and changing the cultural mix], but setting a target he could meet by changing something easier [increasing the number of English-born people who emigrate].
I've been genuinely surprised that this hasn't happened. How did Cameron think he was going to meet his target?
You are right, it doesn't solve the problem. The only way to solve it is to stop mass immigration of cheap labour.
If any of the recent parties of government really cared about the English working class, they would do it.
I'm suspicious of that solution too, though. It's basically the same argument used in the 1970s about imported cars: the way to help the UK car industry was to put up more barriers so people would be forced to buy rubbish Austins rather than reliable Toyotas. You're basically arguing that employers should be forced to employ English workers rather than better-motivated and better-educated EU immigrants. History suggests that competition is a good thing in the long run, and protectionism leads to decline.
I accept of course that the analogy is not perfect: we're talking about people here, not goods, and there are knock-on effects to immigration in terms of infrastructure, housing, schools, etc, and of course cultural cohesiveness. All the same, putting up barriers is really addressing the symptom, not the cause.
We are generally talking about low skilled jobs which anyone can do.
I would restrict immigration so that only highly skilled immigrants could come, and make not taking an unskilled job a reason for stopping the benefits of English unemployed. Then they would be motivated to pick crops or work in Starbucks
At the moment we think we are getting a good deal by getting motivated immigrants doing jobs no one wants, while the state pays our kids to not work
Anyway it's the governments job to look after the interests of the voters, not to provide cheap labour for big business
But the lesson from history is the Tories are very successful when they occupy the centre right and right. But that a right-only party is not successful in the UK.
Mr Blair said of the Conservative Party:
"Their right isn’t like our left. They believe they can win from the right in a way Labour could never do from the left and they are correct in that."
But you don't know his agenda, whether it was internal or external.
I believe he is wrong.
I believe in Macaulay's view: Reform that ye may preserve.
Change is inevitable, and to resist all change will result in revolution. The trick is to identify what should be resisted, and what should be accepted, and how fast the rate of change will be. In my view social tolerance and economic rigour is the right point on the political spectrum and the one that has the potential to win support.
I don't believe that UKIP's position has that potential. But I didn't believe in the Ultras or the Ditchers either. I would have been a Peelite, and I would have been a Liberal Unionist.
You are right, it doesn't solve the problem. The only way to solve it is to stop mass immigration of cheap labour.
If any of the recent parties of government really cared about the English working class, they would do it.
I'm suspicious of that solution too, though. It's basically the same argument used in the 1970s about imported cars: the way to help the UK car industry was to put up more barriers so people would be forced to buy rubbish Austins rather than reliable Toyotas. You're basically arguing that employers should be forced to employ English workers rather than better-motivated and better-educated EU immigrants. History suggests that competition is a good thing in the long run, and protectionism leads to decline.
I accept of course that the analogy is not perfect: we're talking about people here, not goods, and there are knock-on effects to immigration in terms of infrastructure, housing, schools, etc, and of course cultural cohesiveness. All the same, putting up barriers is really addressing the symptom, not the cause.
There's also the fact that immigration affects all low income sectors, whereas opening up particular manufacturing trade means the workers badly affected by that can adapt by going into other sectors.
You are right, it doesn't solve the problem. The only way to solve it is to stop mass immigration of cheap labour.
If any of the recent parties of government really cared about the English working class, they would do it.
I'm suspicious of that solution too, though. It's basically the same argument used in the 1970s about imported cars: the way to help the UK car industry was to put up more barriers so people would be forced to buy rubbish Austins rather than reliable Toyotas. You're basically arguing that employers should be forced to employ English workers rather than better-motivated and better-educated EU immigrants. History suggests that competition is a good thing in the long run, and protectionism leads to decline.
I accept of course that the analogy is not perfect: we're talking about people here, not goods, and there are knock-on effects to immigration in terms of infrastructure, housing, schools, etc, and of course cultural cohesiveness. All the same, putting up barriers is really addressing the symptom, not the cause.
If you don't address the question of why British employers choose to employ foreigners at a multiple of minimum wage in London, then you are attempting - France-style - to legislate against the symptoms.
Because if you come from a low income country the real wage you're earning is a lot more than if you're from the UK, and as a result you'll put up with a lot more crap for that incentive?
In London, I simply do not get applications from British people for many jobs, even when they are low-skilled ones, offering 2x the minimum wage.
This is despite there being areas of deprivation and British unemployment less than two miles away.
One reason that British employers don't seem to employ enough Brits is surely that there seem to be very few Brits applying for jobs.
Now: maybe the Brits are 'discouraged' workers, who have been repeatedly turned down for jobs. Or maybe Brits don't want to do these jobs. Or maybe 2x minimum wage is not enough. (Although as there are people who are currently earning just JSA, that seems unlikely.)
I think we genuinely need to answer the question as to why British people aren't even applying for these jobs, and we need to answer why British employers are paying multiples of minimum wage for low skilled jobs (at McDonalds or Superdrug or Starbucks) to foreigners, when there are unemployed Brits who just receive JSA and housing benefit.
You are right, it doesn't solve the problem. The only way to solve it is to stop mass immigration of cheap labour.
If any of the recent parties of government really cared about the English working class, they would do it.
I'm suspicious of that solution too, though. It's basically the same argument used in the 1970s about imported cars: the way to help the UK car industry was to put up more barriers so people would be forced to buy rubbish Austins rather than reliable Toyotas. You're basically arguing that employers should be forced to employ English workers rather than better-motivated and better-educated EU immigrants.
I accept of course that the analogy is not perfect: we're talking about people here, not goods, and there are knock-on effects to immigration in terms of infrastructure, housing, schools, etc, and of course cultural cohesiveness. All the same, putting up barriers is really addressing the symptom, not the cause.
If you don't address the question of why British employers choose to employ foreigners at a multiple of minimum wage in London, then you are attempting - France-style - to legislate against the symptoms.
Because if you come from a low income country the real wage you're earning is a lot more than if you're from the UK, and as a result you'll put up with a lot more crap for that incentive?
In London, I simply do not get applications from British people for many jobs, even when they are low-skilled ones, offering 2x the minimum wage.
This is despite there being areas of deprivation and British unemployment less than two miles away.
One reason that British employers don't seem to employ enough Brits is surely that there seem to be very few Brits applying for jobs.
Now: maybe the Brits are 'discouraged' workers, who have been repeatedly turned down for jobs. Or maybe Brits don't want to do these jobs. Or maybe 2x minimum wage is not enough. (Although as there are people who are currently earning just JSA, that seems unlikely.)
I think we genuinely need to answer the question as to why British people aren't even applying for these jobs, and we need to answer why British employers are paying multiples of minimum wage for low skilled jobs (at McDonalds or Superdrug or Starbucks) to foreigners, when there are unemployed Brits who just receive JSA and housing benefit.
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
When will the Tories wake up to their impending defeat?
They could take stock of their predicament, or take comfort in Dan Hodges articles and the inevitable run of Tory Press anti-Miliband smears.
They'll inevitably take the latter course. Tories don't do hard decisions.
Certainly the possibility of UKIP splitting the right wing vote does not help... but the Tories comfortably won Newark when the voters could have given them a kicking. The talk about industrial production figures are wide of the mark and just cover month on month movement. Over the year production is up. Reports indicate the recovery is deepening not whithering away. Talk of a housing bubble seems to be wide of the mark as well. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/construction-property/article4142759.ece House prices fell last month. I see the head of the Guardian Group got a £1.4 million bonus last year, Rusbridger trousered nearly half a million.
You are right, it doesn't solve the problem. The only way to solve it is to stop mass immigration of cheap labour.
If any of the recent parties of government really cared about the English working class, they would do it.
I accept of course that the analogy is not perfect: we're talking about people here, not goods, and there are knock-on effects to immigration in terms of infrastructure, housing, schools, etc, and of course cultural cohesiveness. All the same, putting up barriers is really addressing the symptom, not the cause.
If you don't address the question of why British employers choose to employ foreigners at a multiple of minimum wage in London, then you are attempting - France-style - to legislate against the symptoms.
Because if you come from a low income country the real wage you're earning is a lot more than if you're from the UK, and as a result you'll put up with a lot more crap for that incentive?
In London, I simply do not get applications from British people for many jobs, even when they are low-skilled ones, offering 2x the minimum wage.
This is despite there being areas of deprivation and British unemployment less than two miles away.
One reason that British employers don't seem to employ enough Brits is surely that there seem to be very few Brits applying for jobs.
Now: maybe the Brits are 'discouraged' workers, who have been repeatedly turned down for jobs. Or maybe Brits don't want to do these jobs. Or maybe 2x minimum wage is not enough. (Although as there are people who are currently earning just JSA, that seems unlikely.)
I think we genuinely need to answer the question as to why British people aren't even applying for these jobs, and we need to answer why British employers are paying multiples of minimum wage for low skilled jobs (at McDonalds or Superdrug or Starbucks) to foreigners, when there are unemployed Brits who just receive JSA and housing benefit.
What is the argument for refusing to give JSA and housing benefit while there are jobs thZn can be done?
If there is a an £8 hr job in the job centre why should someone have the option of not taking the job and still receiving benefits?
The very least that should happen is that two unemployed people share that job, giving them time to look for other work if that is their excuse
As for protectionism, it is needed at the low end of society. We do it now by paying state benefits, so why not let the people work for their money doing low skilled jobs that are protected from foreign undercutting instead?
In London, I simply do not get applications from British people for many jobs, even when they are low-skilled ones, offering 2x the minimum wage.
This is despite there being areas of deprivation and British unemployment less than two miles away.
One reason that British employers don't seem to employ enough Brits is surely that there seem to be very few Brits applying for jobs.
Now: maybe the Brits are 'discouraged' workers, who have been repeatedly turned down for jobs. Or maybe Brits don't want to do these jobs. Or maybe 2x minimum wage is not enough. (Although as there are people who are currently earning just JSA, that seems unlikely.)
I think we genuinely need to answer the question as to why British people aren't even applying for these jobs, and we need to answer why British employers are paying multiples of minimum wage for low skilled jobs (at McDonalds or Superdrug or Starbucks) to foreigners, when there are unemployed Brits who just receive JSA and housing benefit.
In London it varies a lot by ethnic group. As of 2011, white UK-born people had an unemployment rate of 6.6% and non-white UK-born had an unemployment rate of 15.9%. So, if we assume they have declined since 2011 in line with the national unemployment rate, white British Londoners are likely to be at pretty much full employment, and the issue is likely to be entirely among ethnic minorities.
What is the argument for refusing to give JSA and housing benefit while there are jobs thZn can be done?
If there is a an £8 hr job in the job centre why should someone have the option of not taking the job and still receiving benefits?
The very least that should happen is that two unemployed people share that job, giving them time to look for other work if that is their excuse
As for protectionism, it is needed at the low end of society. We do it now by paying state benefits, so why not let the people work for their money doing low skilled jobs that are protected from foreign undercutting instead?
There's a lot of good stuff here. In theory, you can lose JSA if you refuse to take a job. But if you are determined not to be offered or keep a job - by making sure your application is illegible, or turning up drunk for interview, or just ensuring that you're laid off by your employer - I think it's quite possible, and very hard to stamp out.
There are other things we can do. For example, moving to an insurance based health system (like Italy) which would discourage health tourism.
My view - as always - is that it is better to use the tax and benefit systems to encourage the result you want: i.e. British people being happy, healthy and productive members of society, rather than attempting to restrict peoples' freedoms in an attempt to treat the symptoms.
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
It's not just London, though. A relative of mine runs a business which does accountancy and admin for farms. One of their clients is a huge soft-fruit farm in Kent, which employs a lot of people - partly seasonal, but there is a surprising amount of work all year round as they have to clean and prepare the polytunnels for the next season. Accomodation is provided, and it's pretty good accomodation, so housing is not an obstacle. But again, virtually no English applicants for the jobs which are available.
As PB is suffering from an infestation of @malcolmg, may I cordially advise PBers not to feed that particular troll.
Away and complain to the moderator you undemocratic big jessie. You are not happy unless people are fawning over you. Nothing but a fake.
Malcolm can I say that I for one am greatly looking forward to you turning your ire against the Tories after the No vote.
A quick google of relevant key stats and issues on health, education, defence, etc, should set you up to continue making entertaining contributions to PB.
Please, please don't go all sulky and taciturn post Sep 18th.
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
It's not just London, though. A relative of mine runs a business which does accountancy and admin for farms. One of their clients is a huge soft-fruit farm in Kent, which employs a lot of people - partly seasonal, but there is a surprising amount of work all year round as they have to clean and prepare the polytunnels for the next season. Accomodation is provided, and it's pretty good accomodation, so housing is not an obstacle. But again, virtually no English applicants for the jobs which are available.
My guess is that a lot depends on individual circumstances. For those with families the incentive to find any work over 16 hours is now extremely high given the generosity of in work benefits compared to those available to the unemployed.
For single, young people still living at home the difference is much, much more marginal and the penalties for not taking work in the call centre or the fast food outlet are far more modest. My guess is that among the former group we are already pretty close to full employment (given that if they are simply underemployed the State tends to make up the difference). We still have a major issue with the latter and the policies are not really in place to incentivise them.
An interesting contrast is the student population. It is very rare these days to come across students who are not working part time as well. This is because there is not a benefit alternative open to them. If they want money they need to work. And they do.
I think we need to be a bit more radical in seeking to make their employment attractive both to them and their potential employers. Perhaps an employer could be excused Employers NI for as long as they have been on benefit? And perhaps they could be too. The economics of this is not working for us at the moment.
Re: Cameron. He doesn't seem to have any goal to political life other than winning an election (there is no strategic plan being followed by the Conservatives that I am aware of), so I suspect he would jump rather than be pushed.
Cameron is a classic Conservative of the type that (a brief interlude late Maggie and post Maggie excepted) has dominated the party throughout my life. He is driven by patriotism and a desire for his country to do well. "Well" means to be economically successful but also to be competently run, fair minded and generally decent.
Such a set of ideals does not sit very well with any strong ideology because ideologies are by their nature intolerant and intolerance is one of the things he is against. Those who are obsessed with an ideology or an obsession like Europe think this is weakness and that he really doesn't believe in anything. They are mistaken on both counts.
I don't really agree with that to be honest. Thatcher was a brief interlude she still dominates the party. The non-Thatcherites are now pretty much absent from the front bench. The likes of MacMillan had a one nation politics rooted I suspect in the united effort of the wartime experience (both). There's no comparable bond for Cameron and his generation. Simply saying that he wants his country to do well doesn't mean very much. The Blue Labour tendency would be perfectly comfortable with that kind of patriotism. HOW is your country likely to do well.
Perhaps I'm biased because I'm no Cameron fan but personally I think the basis of his political beliefs come down to his background of wealth and privilege. Like many of people of aid background he is probably wary of a government coming along and confiscating much of that wealth. So it is imperative to find a political belief system that rebukes the idea that the masses would benefit from people like him having the state take much of their wealth away. So firstly you need to believe that egalitarianism is futile and secondly that the state is not capable of spending people's money wisely for the common good. You then have a justification for inherited wealth. So the state must always be undermined. Post-Blair I think Cameron has however come to realise that people want compassion for the poor from politicians and decently funded public services. There needs to be some kind of balance. You need to do just enough to contain any kind of likely insurrection.
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
It's not just London, though. A relative of mine runs a business which does accountancy and admin for farms. One of their clients is a huge fruit-farm in Kent, which employs a lot of people - partly seasonal, but there is a surprising amount of work all year round as they have to clean and prepare the polytunnels for the next season. Accomodation is provided, and it's pretty good accomodation, so housing is not an obstacle. But again, virtually no English applicants for the jobs which are available.
I know a couple of farmers in the market garden business around Chicester, they now use local agencies to provide their field workers. Those agencies are run by Poles who will not even look at English applicants. Its an arrangement that works for the farmers - they get, on the whole, reliable staff in sufficient numbers at minimal cost (still problems though but the agencies sort them out) - and for the men who run the agencies (or gangmasters as they should properly be called). It does of course shut out the indigenous young, unskilled who want to work.
As for Mr. Roberts point, why aren't English people applying for jobs paying multiples of the minimum wage in London (do Starbucks et al really pay £12+ per hour?). Then, setting aside Mr. Socrates point about the ethnic divide in employment, look to the tax and benefit system. The marginal rates of effective taxation are horrendous as one moves from benefits to work. If you have a system that makes it financially better to stay on benefits then one shouldn't be surprised when people make the rational decision to do just that. Isn't this the very point that IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
The marginal rates of effective taxation are horrendous as one moves from benefits to work. If you have a system that makes it financially better to stay on benefits then one shouldn't be surprised when people make the rational decision to do just that. Isn't this the very point that IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
Absolutely, some people are behaving perfectly rationally by staying on benefits (at least in the short term - it's bad for their long-term health and wealth, of course). We do need to change the incentives, and as your rightly say that is what IDS is trying to do. It's a Herculean task, though.
As well as this, the other side of the coin is education, which Michael Gove is trying to fix. Providing incentives to get off benefits won't work if the people concerned have nothing much to offer employers.
The prospect that all this progress could be thrown away by a Labour-led government in a year's time is depressing, to say the least, even though it wouldn't affect me personally. But hopefully voters will have more sense. We shall see.
The marginal rates of effective taxation are horrendous as one moves from benefits to work. If you have a system that makes it financially better to stay on benefits then one shouldn't be surprised when people make the rational decision to do just that. Isn't this the very point that IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
Absolutely, some people are behaving perfectly rationally by staying on benefits (at least in the short term - it's bad for their long-term health and wealth, of course). We do need to change the incentives, and as your rightly say that is what IDS is trying to do. It's a Herculean task, though.
As well as this, the other side of the coin is education, which Michael Gove is trying to fix. Providing incentives to get off benefits won't work if the people concerned have nothing to offer employers.
The prospect that all this progress could be thrown away by a Labour-led government in a year's time is depressing, to say the least, even though it wouldn't affect me personally. But hopefully voters will have more sense. We shall see.
The only clean way of doing this is to have some sort of citizen's payment, which is universal. Everyone from your archetypal layabout to your Mayfair billionaire (some of these are the same people!) would get it, unconditionally.
Income from work, or incentives to train etc, would be additional. It would be expensive but perhaps not as expensive as the benefits trap.
If you have a system that makes it financially better to stay on benefits then one shouldn't be surprised when people make the rational decision to do just that. Isn't this the very point that IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
Yes, it is a big problem - my oh came across loads of cases when she did some voluntary work (Was unemployed herself at the time) for the CAB. IDS to his credit is trying to fix it, though it is a huge and difficult task.
As PB is suffering from an infestation of @malcolmg, may I cordially advise PBers not to feed that particular troll.
Away and complain to the moderator you undemocratic big jessie. You are not happy unless people are fawning over you. Nothing but a fake.
Malcolm can I say that I for one am greatly looking forward to you turning your ire against the Tories after the No vote.
A quick google of relevant key stats and issues on health, education, defence, etc, should set you up to continue making entertaining contributions to PB.
Please, please don't go all sulky and taciturn post Sep 18th.
LOL, I will be on here espousing re the reality of how Independence is working. Will still have time to point out the fake over privileged Tory troughers who think because they are born with a silver spoon in their mouths can stop ordinary people having opinions or even voicing them. It is due to these useless ingratiates that the UK is now a shell of its former self. Truly a union led by spoon fed donkeys which is past its sell by date. Just look at the condescension of the fat cats on here to see the rot in the UK. When will they ask why people are not eating cake.
Isn't this the very point that IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
Well, he is, yes, but his attempts have been incompetent, or what he is trying to do is too complicated.
The Green Party have a simpler solution, of providing a non means tested citizen's income, and replacing JSA, the personal tax allowance and various other benefits with that. This means that people wouldn't have to do the complicated calculation of whether they would be better off in work or on benefits, because they would keep 69% of every additional £1 they earn, even if they are only working an extra few hours, or only for a couple of weeks at a time. And this would be without a complicated computer system having to keep up-to-date and vary benefits instantaneously.
The only complication with such a proposal is that it explicitly discriminates against non-citizens, since such people would not receive the citizen's income, and there would be no benefits system or personal tax allowance for them either. I'm not sure if the Green Party have thought through the logical implications of that, but it still remains an interesting alternative.
Must say this betting malarkey does make one feel slightly unpatriotic at times, laying England in the cricket and the football - backing Ed Balls to be next chancellor (R Nabavi's best spot for a bet imo)...
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
It's not just London, though. A relative of mine runs a business which does accountancy and admin for farms. One of their clients is a huge fruit-farm in Kent, which employs a lot of people - partly seasonal, but there is a surprising amount of work all year round as they have to clean and prepare the polytunnels for the next season. Accomodation is provided, and it's pretty good accomodation, so housing is not an obstacle. But again, virtually no English applicants for the jobs which are available.
I know a couple of farmers in the market garden business around Chicester, they now use local agencies to provide their field workers. Those agencies are run by Poles who will not even look at English applicants. Its an arrangement that works for the farmers - they get, on the whole, reliable staff in sufficient numbers at minimal cost (still problems though but the agencies sort them out) - and for the men who run the agencies (or gangmasters as they should properly be called). It does of course shut out the indigenous young, unskilled who want to work.
As for Mr. Roberts point, why aren't English people applying for jobs paying multiples of the minimum wage in London (do Starbucks et al really pay £12+ per hour?). Then, setting aside Mr. Socrates point about the ethnic divide in employment, look to the tax and benefit system. The marginal rates of effective taxation are horrendous as one moves from benefits to work. If you have a system that makes it financially better to stay on benefits then one shouldn't be surprised when people make the rational decision to do just that. Isn't this the very point that IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
Hurst , have to question one point there, IDS is not trying to fix anything. He is trying to cut the payouts with little regard to the people affected. If they could only put such effort in to fixing tax evasion , benefits would not be an issue. Given that would mean both themselves and their chums losing out it will never happen, Tories only goal is to line both their own and their chums pockets.
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
It's not just London, though. A relative of mine runs a business which does accountancy and admin for farms. One of their clients is a huge soft-fruit farm in Kent, which employs a lot of people - partly seasonal, but there is a surprising amount of work all year round as they have to clean and prepare the polytunnels for the next season. Accomodation is provided, and it's pretty good accomodation, so housing is not an obstacle. But again, virtually no English applicants for the jobs which are available.
Nabbers true enough and often found in other seasonal agricultural areas such as Norfolk and Lincolnshire.
There does appear an obvious reason but frankly I'm loath to even contemplate it.
I don't really agree with that to be honest. Thatcher was a brief interlude she still dominates the party. The non-Thatcherites are now pretty much absent from the front bench. The likes of MacMillan had a one nation politics rooted I suspect in the united effort of the wartime experience (both). There's no comparable bond for Cameron and his generation. Simply saying that he wants his country to do well doesn't mean very much. The Blue Labour tendency would be perfectly comfortable with that kind of patriotism. HOW is your country likely to do well.
Perhaps I'm biased because I'm no Cameron fan but personally I think the basis of his political beliefs come down to his background of wealth and privilege. Like many of people of aid background he is probably wary of a government coming along and confiscating much of that wealth. So it is imperative to find a political belief system that rebukes the idea that the masses would benefit from people like him having the state take much of their wealth away. So firstly you need to believe that egalitarianism is futile and secondly that the state is not capable of spending people's money wisely for the common good. You then have a justification for inherited wealth. So the state must always be undermined. Post-Blair I think Cameron has however come to realise that people want compassion for the poor from politicians and decently funded public services. There needs to be some kind of balance. You need to do just enough to contain any kind of likely insurrection.
I struggle to see out and out Thatcherites on the front bench. I think they are much more nuanced (as of course was Thatcher herself in reality as opposed to the myth).
I do accept that there is an element of conservatism in Cameron's world view (the clue is perhaps in the name) and if you are looking for firebrands to overthrow the status quo you are better looking elsewhere (quite where in modern politics is another question).
But the reality is that this government has done remarkable things to reduce unemployment, it has in fact reduced inequality of income quite significantly by maintaining the value of benefits when real wages were falling, it has really tried to give more children from poor backgrounds a better education with the pupil premium and the shakeup of complacency in the educational establishment, it has, somewhat against the trend in western Europe, managed to maintain health spending in real terms and improved the efficiency of that provision by stripping out costs and it has had a socially liberal agenda with changes like gay marriage.
If you are wondering how a social conservative makes his country better one really only needs to look at the record. It will never satisfy the firebrands but it has been good government.
Must say this betting malarkey does make one feel slightly unpatriotic at times, laying England in the cricket and the football - backing Ed Balls to be next chancellor (R Nabavi's best spot for a bet imo)...
Business is business, Mr Pulpstar! Can't be sentimental about it.
As PB is suffering from an infestation of @malcolmg, may I cordially advise PBers not to feed that particular troll.
Away and complain to the moderator you undemocratic big jessie. You are not happy unless people are fawning over you. Nothing but a fake.
Please, please don't go all sulky and taciturn post Sep 18th.
Here, here. I want some serious splainin' on why the NO was unfair or somehow invalid and we are clamouring for a revote in only 5 years' time really.
One can only hope that justice is done and if not that there will be less than a 5 year wait for round 2. If it did really happen , the lies would be out soon, the huge budget cuts and further devastation would make people realise the truth at last. I for one though believe we will vote for HOPE rather than NO HOPE on the 18th.
Mr. Nabavi, if Balls does lose his seat I may write a piece for my own blog (a first, as I try not to go on about politics elsewhere) entitled Ed Balls - My Part in his Downfall.
Ed Miliband obviously hadn't had enough of a kicking on the NHS last week - he's come back for some more this week.....
Going on the NHS with Burnham at his side will only end as it did today. Cameron clearly enjoyed sticking the boot in and I certainly enjoyed hearing it. Burnham deserves it all there is no more odious politician in UK politics today.
Make more low skilled jobs available by reducing the competition from overseas immigrants that have more incentive to do them
Make the jobs more attractive by removing benefits from people who refuse to do them
Protectionism at the low end of society is needed, it doesn't need to be a dirty word.
This would also mean that the immigrants that do work here would be of a higher skilllset, have more money, and probably be more inclined to assimilate
I don't really agree with that to be honest. .... ....
If you are wondering how a social conservative makes his country better one really only needs to look at the record. It will never satisfy the firebrands but it has been good government.
I don't really agree with that to be honest. Thatcher was a brief interlude she still dominates the party. The non-Thatcherites are now pretty much absent from the front bench. The likes of MacMillan had a one nation politics rooted I suspect in the united effort of the wartime experience (both). There's no comparable bond for Cameron and his generation. Simply saying that he wants his country to do well doesn't mean very much. The Blue Labour tendency would be perfectly comfortable with that kind of patriotism. HOW is your country likely to do well.
..... Post-Blair I think Cameron has however come to realise that people want compassion for the poor from politicians and decently funded public services. There needs to be some kind of balance. You need to do just enough to contain any kind of likely insurrection.
I struggle to see out and out Thatcherites on the front bench. I think they are much more nuanced (as of course was Thatcher herself in reality as opposed to the myth).
I do accept that there is an element of conservatism in Cameron's world view (the clue is perhaps in the name) and if you are looking for firebrands to overthrow the status quo you are better looking elsewhere (quite where in modern politics is another question).
But the reality is that this government has done remarkable things to reduce unemployment, it has in fact reduced inequality of income quite significantly by maintaining the value of benefits when real wages were falling, it has really tried to give more children from poor backgrounds a better education with the pupil premium and the shakeup of complacency in the educational establishment, it has, somewhat against the trend in western Europe, managed to maintain health spending in real terms and improved the efficiency of that provision by stripping out costs and it has had a socially liberal agenda with changes like gay marriage.
If you are wondering how a social conservative makes his country better one really only needs to look at the record. It will never satisfy the firebrands but it has been good government.
Correct. All the critisism of Cameron and the current conservative record, from right and left, is all a bit hysterical and not based on the facts of the record.
@macisback Did Dave answer the original question, or did he answer a different question entirely? That's is why labour is pushing on it. Whether this is a profitable line politically remains to be seen, and will only become apparent in TV and other media interviews afterward.
The only clean way of doing this is to have some sort of citizen's payment, which is universal. Everyone from your archetypal layabout to your Mayfair billionaire (some of these are the same people!) would get it, unconditionally.
Income from work, or incentives to train etc, would be additional. It would be expensive but perhaps not as expensive as the benefits trap.
The thing that blocks moving to a universal citizen's payment approach is housing benefit. I remember reading somewhere that the cost of it is greater than all other benefits excluding pensions.
Simon from Ilkley meetup.Tories would have done better if Major had stayed after 97 and Hague 2001.Only point changing a leader is if you have someone significantly better than incumbert.Noone currently in the cabinet is significantly better than Cameron and most are worse.Maybe there is a case for one of the 2010 new MP`s notably someone from an ordinary background with a strong CV and good in interview on the tv
As PB is suffering from an infestation of @malcolmg, may I cordially advise PBers not to feed that particular troll.
Away and complain to the moderator you undemocratic big jessie. You are not happy unless people are fawning over you. Nothing but a fake.
Please, please don't go all sulky and taciturn post Sep 18th.
Here, here. I want some serious splainin' on why the NO was unfair or somehow invalid and we are clamouring for a revote in only 5 years' time really.
One can only hope that there will be less than a 5 year wait for round 2. If it did really happen , the lies would be out soon, the huge budget cuts and further devastation would make people realise the truth at last.
Malc I admire your wish to see a YES - but you're starting to go all Tapestry on us.
Less than 5 years before another round of self-flagellation? How about 40? Further devastation? Lies? Maybe the giant spaghetti monster is coming to get you. Stock up on tinfoil mate. LOoks like you're going to need it
@macisback Did Dave answer the original question, or did he answer a different question entirely? That's is why labour is pushing on it. Whether this is a profitable line politically remains to be seen, and will only become apparent in TV and other media interviews afterward.
It repeatedly gives Cameron the opportunity to reel off that 18, 26 and 52 week waiting times are far better than they were under Labour. Which is no mean feat, given that Labour's open border policy bequeathed us a much higher population needing medical care - but made no extra provision for it.
A universal income payable to all British nationals? Well, aside from the fact that it would be illegal under EU law, it would have to be a an income payable to all EU citizens that "live" here (i.e have a UK address and have registered), might it not present problems of its own. At what level would it be set? Enough to live on (with the addition of Housing Benefit, obviously)?
Is the proposal actually to make everyone entitled to the old age pension from the moment they reach adulthood and if they care to work they can and keep most of what they earn? That fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the state.
@MarqueeMark I thought he hadn't answered the original question, but instead reeled off statistics relating to an entirely different one. I am glad you noticed this as well, and I daresay that it will be pointed out by others at a later date.
A wise move from Ed to go on the core ground of NHS again before the Summer hols, if this is the last PMQs for a few months, he wanted to send his benches off in good spirits...
Maybe he should just ask about the opinion polls and the 7% leads... that would at least cheer them up I'm sure.
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
It's not just London, though. A relative of mine runs a business which does accountancy and admin for farms. One of their clients is a huge fruit-farm in Kent, which employs a lot of people - partly seasonal, but there is a surprising amount of work all year round as they have to clean and prepare the polytunnels for the next season. Accomodation is provided, and it's pretty good accomodation, so housing is not an obstacle. But again, virtually no English applicants for the jobs which are available.
I know a couple of farmers in the market garden business around Chicester, they now use local agencies to provide their field workers. Those agencies are run by Poles who will not even look at English applicants. Its an arrangement that works for the farmers - they get, on the whole, reliable staff in sufficient numbers at minimal cost (still problems though but the agencies sort them out) - and for the men who run the agencies (or gangmasters as they should properly be called). It does of course shut out the indigenous young, unskilled who want to work.
As for Mr. Roberts point, why aren't English people applying for jobs paying multiples of the minimum wage in London (do Starbucks et al really pay £12+ per hour?). Then, setting aside Mr. Socrates point about the ethnic divide in employment, look to the tax and benefit system. The marginal rates of effective taxation are horrendous as one moves from benefits to work. If you have a system that makes it financially better to stay on benefits then one shouldn't be surprised when people make the rational decision to do just that. Isn't this the very point that IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
Hurst , have to question one point there, IDS is not trying to fix anything. He is trying to cut the payouts with little regard to the people affected. If they could only put such effort in to fixing tax evasion , benefits would not be an issue. Given that would mean both themselves and their chums losing out it will never happen, Tories only goal is to line both their own and their chums pockets.
You are entitled to your belief, Mr. G. It is not one that I would go along with. If there were no tax evasion at all then the problem of people not taking work because it did not provide them with sufficient additional rewards would not go away, it would just become more affordable.
Make more low skilled jobs available by reducing the competition from overseas immigrants that have more incentive to do them
Make the jobs more attractive by removing benefits from people who refuse to do them
Protectionism at the low end of society is needed, it doesn't need to be a dirty word.
This would also mean that the immigrants that do work here would be of a higher skilllset, have more money, and probably be more inclined to assimilate
As usual, an overly simplistic prospectus. Would you remove benefits for a mum of three whose partner has abandoned her? In which case, would you take the children into care - as she would have no way of looking after them while being forced to work.
Were this as simple as the reactionary right think it is, it would have been solved decades ago. Thankfully politicians of the sensible centre-left and centre-right realise it's a complex issue with few if any easy answers.
Simon from Ilkley meetup.Tories would have done better if Major had stayed after 97 and Hague 2001.Only point changing a leader is if you have someone significantly better than incumbert.Noone currently in the cabinet is significantly better than Cameron and most are worse.Maybe there is a case for one of the 2010 new MP`s notably someone from an ordinary background with a strong CV and good in interview on the tv
Priti Patel... A right wing euro sceptic Asian woman would kill about two dozen birds with one stone for the Conservatives
As PB is suffering from an infestation of @malcolmg, may I cordially advise PBers not to feed that particular troll.
I beg to differ. Being an uncouth monomaniac is a different thing from being a troll. malcolmg is nothing if not sincere.
Jack does not like democracy, he prefers the elite to give the orders and the plebs to only speak when spoken too. Hopefully you were referring to my zeal for independence, rather than other connotations of monomania.. LOL
Make more low skilled jobs available by reducing the competition from overseas immigrants that have more incentive to do them
This has exactly the same effect on the supply chain as removing competition for inefficient car parts makers by banning the import of cheaper car parts. Namely: 1) Companies buying the car parts to make cars move overseas where they can buy cheaper, better parts. 2) To the extent that they don't, the costs are paid by all the companies that use the cars, costing jobs right across the whole economy.
The one you should be particularly worrying about in the next 20 years is (1), because communications technology and better machinery will make it possible to move all kinds of jobs out of the country whenever the government is preventing the workers from moving to the jobs. And when you offshore a job because you banned the person who would have done it from coming, you take some of the few remaining non-mobile support jobs with you.
The coherent thing to do here is to crack down on trade as well to prevent the domestic job from turning into an import, but this policy is very short of mainstream advocates in the UK.
Is the proposal actually to make everyone entitled to the old age pension from the moment they reach adulthood and if they care to work they can and keep most of what they earn? That fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the state.
To a large extent that is the design of universal income.. The theory is that universal benefits are easier and cheaper to manage than means tested benefits (no DSS.....) and just increase tax rates to reflect the change....
As PB is suffering from an infestation of @malcolmg, may I cordially advise PBers not to feed that particular troll.
Away and complain to the moderator you undemocratic big jessie. You are not happy unless people are fawning over you. Nothing but a fake.
Please, please don't go all sulky and taciturn post Sep 18th.
Here, here. I want some serious splainin' on why the NO was unfair or somehow invalid and we are clamouring for a revote in only 5 years' time really.
One can only hope that there will be less than a 5 year wait for round 2. If it did really happen , the lies would be out soon, the huge budget cuts and further devastation would make people realise the truth at last.
Malc I admire your wish to see a YES - but you're starting to go all Tapestry on us.
Less than 5 years before another round of self-flagellation? How about 40? Further devastation? Lies? Maybe the giant spaghetti monster is coming to get you. Stock up on tinfoil mate. LOoks like you're going to need it
Patrick , One can only hope not , however if we are to remain slaves I always have the option to emigrate. Others will not be so lucky.
PS Life will go on for me if it is NO, my concern is for my grandchildren.
Make more low skilled jobs available by reducing the competition from overseas immigrants that have more incentive to do them
Make the jobs more attractive by removing benefits from people who refuse to do them
Protectionism at the low end of society is needed, it doesn't need to be a dirty word.
This would also mean that the immigrants that do work here would be of a higher skilllset, have more money, and probably be more inclined to assimilate
It is obvious if you want the best for the country long-term - create labour shortage first then turf people off benefits.
Unfortunately the people who bought the political class don't want that. They want a massive labour surplus first and then scrap the welfare system.
I particularly enjoyed this devastating revelation:
The leak comes after ministers launched a scheme for Jersey account-holders to make disclosures last year. They claim the big challenge the authorities face is secret tax evasion, which is a crime. The chancellor, George Osborne, said in April: "If you're evading tax offshore, there is no safe haven and we will find you."
But the findings contradict this picture of illegality. Many Jersey loopholes used by wealthy Britons to pass on their fortunes appear from our research to have been perfectly legal.
You have to admire their chutzpah in trying to claim that the fact people have arranged their affairs in accordance with the law is a scandal. Would it be better if they were breaking the law?
A universal income payable to all British nationals? Well, aside from the fact that it would be illegal under EU law, it would have to be a an income payable to all EU citizens that "live" here (i.e have a UK address and have registered), might it not present problems of its own. At what level would it be set? Enough to live on (with the addition of Housing Benefit, obviously)?
Is the proposal actually to make everyone entitled to the old age pension from the moment they reach adulthood and if they care to work they can and keep most of what they earn? That fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the state.
It's a disgraceful idea. Perfect for the layabout society we live in though. Paying people to sit on their arse and drink cheap supermarket booze whilst half the world starves to death. How about income payable to the unemployed and able to work in return for manual work required for state infrastructure, maintenance and the like, with 2 days a week off to be spent seeking permanent employment at approved local job clubs. Better still, minimal cash payment alongside food, clothing and services vouchers at a level consistent with maintaining an average rented or state home.
@Richard_Nabavi Some might say that closing the loopholes would be better. Of course, the people who think that way seldom get heard, but the minority who benefit from them do.
Simon from Ilkley meetup.Tories would have done better if Major had stayed after 97 and Hague 2001.Only point changing a leader is if you have someone significantly better than incumbert.Noone currently in the cabinet is significantly better than Cameron and most are worse.Maybe there is a case for one of the 2010 new MP`s notably someone from an ordinary background with a strong CV and good in interview on the tv
Priti Patel... A right wing euro sceptic Asian woman would kill about two dozen birds with one stone for the Conservatives
@MarqueeMark I thought he hadn't answered the original question, but instead reeled off statistics relating to an entirely different one. I am glad you noticed this as well, and I daresay that it will be pointed out by others at a later date.
Exactly the same proportion of people are waiting over 4 hours at A&E as there were 4 years ago. The NUMBER of people waiting has increased because the population has increased. But Labour made no provision for this - and would have cut the NHS Budget.
The NUMBER of people waiting for 18, 26, and 52 weeks for operations has reduced dramatically under this Govt. If you think the NHS is worse off under this Govt., then certainly I don't concede that.
Mr Miliband previously told us the NHS was going to die in 90 days. That was political scaremongering of the most despicable kind.
Isn't this the very point that IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
Well, he is, yes, but his attempts have been incompetent, or what he is trying to do is too complicated.
The Green Party have a simpler solution, of providing a non means tested citizen's income, and replacing JSA, the personal tax allowance and various other benefits with that. This means that people wouldn't have to do the complicated calculation of whether they would be better off in work or on benefits, because they would keep 69% of every additional £1 they earn, even if they are only working an extra few hours, or only for a couple of weeks at a time. And this would be without a complicated computer system having to keep up-to-date and vary benefits instantaneously.
The only complication with such a proposal is that it explicitly discriminates against non-citizens, since such people would not receive the citizen's income, and there would be no benefits system or personal tax allowance for them either. I'm not sure if the Green Party have thought through the logical implications of that, but it still remains an interesting alternative.
The problem is always cost.
Let's say 63m people in the UK, giving them £5,000 each.
Gross cost of £315 billion
Let's pay an income of £1,000 to the 11m people under the age of 15 (wiki) instead of child benefit: saves £44bn. Net cost of £270bn
That compares to the total cost of the UK welfare system of about £200bn (11/12 - table 2.1)
"Thankfully politicians of the sensible centre-left and centre-right realise it's a complex issue with few if any easy answers"
Crikey, Mr. Fett, the old irony meter spiked when I read that, given that a short while ago you had posted:
"The only clean way of doing this is to have some sort of citizen's payment, which is universal. Everyone from your archetypal layabout to your Mayfair billionaire (some of these are the same people!) would get it, unconditionally"
Some might say that closing the loopholes would be better. Of course, the people who think that way seldom get heard, but the minority who benefit from them do.
Indeed, and, as you will know, Osborne is doing an absolutely excellent job on closing loopholes, including most notably introducing the General Anti-Abuse Rule:
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
It's not just London, though. A relative of mine runs a business which does accountancy and admin for farms. One of their clients is a huge fruit-farm in Kent, which employs a lot of people - partly seasonal, but there is a surprising amount of work all year round as they have to clean and prepare the polytunnels for the next season. Accomodation is provided, and it's pretty good accomodation, so housing is not an obstacle. But again, virtually no English applicants for the jobs which are available.
I know a couple of farmers in the market garden business around Chicester, they now use local agencies to provide their field workers. Those agencies are run by Poles who will not even look at English applicants. Its an arrangement that works for the farmers - they get, on the whole, reliable staff in sufficient numbers at minimal cost (still problems though but the agencies sort them out) - and for the men who run the agencies (or gangmasters as they should properly be called). It does of course shut out the indigenous young, unskilled who want to work.
As for Mr. Roberts point, why aren't English people applying for jobs paying multiples of the minimum wage in London (do Starbucks et al really pay £12+ per hour?). Then, setting aside Mr. Socrates point about the ethnic divide in employment, look to the tax and benefit system. The marginal rates of effective taxation are horrendous as one moves from benefits to work. If you have a system that makes it financially better to stay on benefits then one shouldn't be surprised when people make the rational decision to do just that. Isn't this the very point that IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
Hurst , have to question one point there, IDS is not trying to fix anything. He is trying to cut the payouts with little regard to the people affected. If they could only put such effort in to fixing tax evasion , benefits would not be an issue. Given that would mean both themselves and their chums losing out it will never happen, Tories only goal is to line both their own and their chums pockets.
Your conclusions are all wrong. Indeed one-eyed. The govt is following the advice of labour's Frank Field. it is cutting back abuses capping benefits and making work more lucrative than benefits. Its working too if you look at the figures.
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
It's not just London, though. A relative of mine runs a business which does accountancy and admin for farms. One of their clients is a huge fruit-farm in Kent, which employs a lot of people - partly seasonal, but there is a surprising amount of work all year round as they have to clean and prepare the polytunnels for the next season. Accomodation is provided, and it's pretty good accomodation, so housing is not an obstacle. But again, virtually no English applicants for the jobs which are available.
Hurst , have to question one point there, IDS is not trying to fix anything. He is trying to cut the payouts with little regard to the people affected. If they could only put such effort in to fixing tax evasion , benefits would not be an issue. Given that would mean both themselves and their chums losing out it will never happen, Tories only goal is to line both their own and their chums pockets.
You are entitled to your belief, Mr. G. It is not one that I would go along with. If there were no tax evasion at all then the problem of people not taking work because it did not provide them with sufficient additional rewards would not go away, it would just become more affordable.
Totally agree Hurst , just be nice if they were as tough on the idle rich as they are on the idle poor. Perhaps people might then have a little higher regard for politicians.
Some might say that closing the loopholes would be better. Of course, the people who think that way seldom get heard, but the minority who benefit from them do.
Indeed, and, as you will know, Osborne is doing an absolutely excellent job on closing loopholes, including most notably introducing the General Anti-Abuse Rule:
What a pity the last government was so poor on this.
Indeed - the coalition have closed down a jolly lucrative VAT avoidance business that used to be run out of the Channel islands - which blossomed under Labour, but now has been snuffed out......
Some might say that closing the loopholes would be better. Of course, the people who think that way seldom get heard, but the minority who benefit from them do.
Indeed, and, as you will know, Osborne is doing an absolutely excellent job on closing loopholes, including most notably introducing the General Anti-Abuse Rule:
What a pity the last government was so poor on this.
They weren't totally useless at closing loopholes. Just look at SN58 of the 2008 finance act where they were happy to fix an HMRC screwup by changing the fundamental principle of UK law (that decisions should be made on the laws of the time, not the law of today). The people affected still don't know if the £100k+ demands they have pending from HMRC are valid or not.
Some might say that closing the loopholes would be better. Of course, the people who think that way seldom get heard, but the minority who benefit from them do.
Indeed, and, as you will know, Osborne is doing an absolutely excellent job on closing loopholes, including most notably introducing the General Anti-Abuse Rule:
What a pity the last government was so poor on this.
So great that one of his first acts as Chancellor was to slash HMRC's budget, sacking lots of tax experts in the process, the outcome of which being that the government found itself with a massive revenue hole So you re-hire lots of new civil servants, train them up as tax experts and protect the HMRC budget. I suppose you could say he's done the right thing after exploring all the other possibilities.
So great that one of his first acts as Chancellor was to slash HMRC's budget, sacking lots of tax experts in the process, the outcome of which being that the government found itself with a massive revenue hole So you re-hire lots of new civil servants, train them up as tax experts and protect the HMRC budget. I suppose you could say he's done the right thing after exploring all the other possibilities.
Why limit it to the NHS? We have a proposed bill to increase surveillance powers, government is pushing an increase threat of terrorism. This of course might be entirely coincidental, but it happens way to often for random chance. Reds under the beds anyone?
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
It's not just London, though. A relative of mine runs a business which does accountancy and admin for farms. One of their clients is a huge fruit-farm in Kent, which employs a lot of people - partly seasonal, but there is a surprising amount of work all year round as they have to clean and prepare the polytunnels for the next season. Accomodation is provided, and it's pretty good accomodation, so housing is not an obstacle. But again, virtually no English applicants for the jobs which are available.
I know a couple of farmers in the market garden business around Chicester, they now use local agencies to provide their field workers. Those agencies are run by Poles who will not even look at English applicants. Its an arrangement that works for the farmers - they get, on the whole, reliable staff in sufficient numbers at minimal cost (still problems though but the agencies sort them out) - and for the men who run the agencies (or gangmasters as they should properly be called). It does of course shut out the indigenous young, unskilled who want to work.
IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
Tories only goal is to line both their own and their chums pockets.
Your conclusions are all wrong. Indeed one-eyed. The govt is following the advice of labour's Frank Field. it is cutting back abuses capping benefits and making work more lucrative than benefits. Its working too if you look at the figures.
Whilst people are getting housing benefit it is not worth people working at the lower end of the scale , given zero hours contracts, minimum wage etc etc. Whilst you can get more money on the dole there is no incentive to work unless it is for cash in hand. The govt is not solving that issue, it is merely cutting some benefits. It will not solve the problem. However my real point was that if they expended as much energy on the real big frauds taking place at the high end , then the benefits issue would be less relevant , still an issue for society but not as big a financial issue. Explain how that is one eyed.
My Scots friend's sons, living in a village near Edinburgh and looking for work at the local mushroom farm, were told they didn't speak the language...
Robert, with very high rental costs I think the loss of housing benefit in particular for adults in the London would be a significant factor for the indigenous population.
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
It's not just London, though. A relative of mine runs a business which does accountancy and admin for farms. One of their clients is a huge fruit-farm in Kent, which employs a lot of people - partly seasonal, but there is a surprising amount of work all year round as they have to clean and prepare the polytunnels for the next season. Accomodation is provided, and it's pretty good accomodation, so housing is not an obstacle. But again, virtually no English applicants for the jobs which are available.
Hurst , have to question one point there, IDS is not trying to fix anything. He is trying to cut the payouts with little regard to the people affected. If they could only put such effort in to fixing tax evasion , benefits would not be an issue. Given that would mean both themselves and their chums losing out it will never happen, Tories only goal is to line both their own and their chums pockets.
You are entitled to your belief, Mr. G. It is not one that I would go along with. If there were no tax evasion at all then the problem of people not taking work because it did not provide them with sufficient additional rewards would not go away, it would just become more affordable.
Totally agree Hurst , just be nice if they were as tough on the idle rich as they are on the idle poor. Perhaps people might then have a little higher regard for politicians.
Quite right, Mr. G., two things though. Firstly, as has been pointed out the present government has done rather a lot on tax avoidance and evasion, more than any other I can remember. Secondly, I don't think I have ever met an idle rich person at least not one who wasn't of pensionable age. There is a reason why they are rich and, even those with serious inherited wealth, seem to work very hard to keep it that way. I would guess that the wealthiest person on this site works a damn site harder than I did for most of my careers (operational tours excepted), but then I have never really been motivated by money.
So great that one of his first acts as Chancellor was to slash HMRC's budget, sacking lots of tax experts in the process, the outcome of which being that the government found itself with a massive revenue hole So you re-hire lots of new civil servants, train them up as tax experts and protect the HMRC budget. I suppose you could say he's done the right thing after exploring all the other possibilities.
You made that all up, didn't you?
No I didn't. A have a good contact there. HMRC's budget was slashed before being protected. Why do you think that is? I know someone who's benefiting very nicely from being one of the new experts they're training up having got rid of many of the old ones. Sadly our media aren't interested in reporting this government's many failures. How IDS survives in spite of the mess of UC is a mystery.
Comments
Let's see some form first.
Even labour in their 2010 manifesto promised 20 billion of economy savings (cuts in real terms spending to you and me) in the NHS and did not promise to increase its budget in real terms. The disasters of Stafford hardly suggests the NHS was safe with Labour.
Free schools are only a bad idea if you are a left wing demagogue intent on bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator and Labour parked millions on welfare rather than get them to work and instead relied in imported labour.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jun/10/document-leak-investigated-ed-balls
The best sort of politician is the one who would say "I have no set policies, only a few ideas which I will check by reference to experts and then by experience. If the evidence shows they are wrong, then I will change them."
Unfortunately, they would never be selected or elected, even if they stood as an independent. So we are stuck with the idealogues who will aim by any means possible to have their policies enacted, or those only concerned with power for its own sake. These are the people who have the determination to succeed in politics.
But there are many in the former category. A good example ... A political union for Europe is obviously desirable but we'd better not say so immediately in case they take fright - let's pretend it's just a common market.
But it's not an unusual mindset. I recall seeing a quotation by one of the Popes asking his enemies to even consider that they might be mistaken. Hmm. I thought, pot certainly recognises kettle there.
http://www.frankfield.com/campaigns/balanced-migration.aspx
BTW, you noted yesterday morning an expected resolution that day of the "other matter".
Any joy ?
I really did think that Cameron's target of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands was a politicians way of not addressing what the most vocal people were upset by [non-English people immigrating and changing the cultural mix], but setting a target he could meet by changing something easier [increasing the number of English-born people who emigrate].
I've been genuinely surprised that this hasn't happened. How did Cameron think he was going to meet his target?
I would restrict immigration so that only highly skilled immigrants could come, and make not taking an unskilled job a reason for stopping the benefits of English unemployed. Then they would be motivated to pick crops or work in Starbucks
At the moment we think we are getting a good deal by getting motivated immigrants doing jobs no one wants, while the state pays our kids to not work
Anyway it's the governments job to look after the interests of the voters, not to provide cheap labour for big business
A good batting track it appears and a decent toss for India to win.
I believe he is wrong.
I believe in Macaulay's view: Reform that ye may preserve.
Change is inevitable, and to resist all change will result in revolution. The trick is to identify what should be resisted, and what should be accepted, and how fast the rate of change will be. In my view social tolerance and economic rigour is the right point on the political spectrum and the one that has the potential to win support.
I don't believe that UKIP's position has that potential. But I didn't believe in the Ultras or the Ditchers either. I would have been a Peelite, and I would have been a Liberal Unionist.
This is despite there being areas of deprivation and British unemployment less than two miles away.
One reason that British employers don't seem to employ enough Brits is surely that there seem to be very few Brits applying for jobs.
Now: maybe the Brits are 'discouraged' workers, who have been repeatedly turned down for jobs. Or maybe Brits don't want to do these jobs. Or maybe 2x minimum wage is not enough. (Although as there are people who are currently earning just JSA, that seems unlikely.)
I think we genuinely need to answer the question as to why British people aren't even applying for these jobs, and we need to answer why British employers are paying multiples of minimum wage for low skilled jobs (at McDonalds or Superdrug or Starbucks) to foreigners, when there are unemployed Brits who just receive JSA and housing benefit.
We need Netherlands Fifty Thousand Billion Googolplex, Argentina Nil
Perhaps young single foreign workers are also more willing to flat/house share in greater multiples too.
The talk about industrial production figures are wide of the mark and just cover month on month movement. Over the year production is up. Reports indicate the recovery is deepening not whithering away.
Talk of a housing bubble seems to be wide of the mark as well.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/construction-property/article4142759.ece
House prices fell last month.
I see the head of the Guardian Group got a £1.4 million bonus last year, Rusbridger trousered nearly half a million.
If there is a an £8 hr job in the job centre why should someone have the option of not taking the job and still receiving benefits?
The very least that should happen is that two unemployed people share that job, giving them time to look for other work if that is their excuse
As for protectionism, it is needed at the low end of society. We do it now by paying state benefits, so why not let the people work for their money doing low skilled jobs that are protected from foreign undercutting instead?
There are other things we can do. For example, moving to an insurance based health system (like Italy) which would discourage health tourism.
My view - as always - is that it is better to use the tax and benefit systems to encourage the result you want: i.e. British people being happy, healthy and productive members of society, rather than attempting to restrict peoples' freedoms in an attempt to treat the symptoms.
A quick google of relevant key stats and issues on health, education, defence, etc, should set you up to continue making entertaining contributions to PB.
Please, please don't go all sulky and taciturn post Sep 18th.
For single, young people still living at home the difference is much, much more marginal and the penalties for not taking work in the call centre or the fast food outlet are far more modest.
My guess is that among the former group we are already pretty close to full employment (given that if they are simply underemployed the State tends to make up the difference). We still have a major issue with the latter and the policies are not really in place to incentivise them.
An interesting contrast is the student population. It is very rare these days to come across students who are not working part time as well. This is because there is not a benefit alternative open to them. If they want money they need to work. And they do.
I think we need to be a bit more radical in seeking to make their employment attractive both to them and their potential employers. Perhaps an employer could be excused Employers NI for as long as they have been on benefit? And perhaps they could be too. The economics of this is not working for us at the moment.
Perhaps I'm biased because I'm no Cameron fan but personally I think the basis of his political beliefs come down to his background of wealth and privilege. Like many of people of aid background he is probably wary of a government coming along and confiscating much of that wealth. So it is imperative to find a political belief system that rebukes the idea that the masses would benefit from people like him having the state take much of their wealth away. So firstly you need to believe that egalitarianism is futile and secondly that the state is not capable of spending people's money wisely for the common good. You then have a justification for inherited wealth. So the state must always be undermined. Post-Blair I think Cameron has however come to realise that people want compassion for the poor from politicians and decently funded public services. There needs to be some kind of balance. You need to do just enough to contain any kind of likely insurrection.
As for Mr. Roberts point, why aren't English people applying for jobs paying multiples of the minimum wage in London (do Starbucks et al really pay £12+ per hour?). Then, setting aside Mr. Socrates point about the ethnic divide in employment, look to the tax and benefit system. The marginal rates of effective taxation are horrendous as one moves from benefits to work. If you have a system that makes it financially better to stay on benefits then one shouldn't be surprised when people make the rational decision to do just that. Isn't this the very point that IDS is trying to tackle, to the mockery of many, not least on here?
As well as this, the other side of the coin is education, which Michael Gove is trying to fix. Providing incentives to get off benefits won't work if the people concerned have nothing much to offer employers.
The prospect that all this progress could be thrown away by a Labour-led government in a year's time is depressing, to say the least, even though it wouldn't affect me personally. But hopefully voters will have more sense. We shall see.
Income from work, or incentives to train etc, would be additional. It would be expensive but perhaps not as expensive as the benefits trap.
It is due to these useless ingratiates that the UK is now a shell of its former self. Truly a union led by spoon fed donkeys which is past its sell by date. Just look at the condescension of the fat cats on here to see the rot in the UK. When will they ask why people are not eating cake.
The Green Party have a simpler solution, of providing a non means tested citizen's income, and replacing JSA, the personal tax allowance and various other benefits with that. This means that people wouldn't have to do the complicated calculation of whether they would be better off in work or on benefits, because they would keep 69% of every additional £1 they earn, even if they are only working an extra few hours, or only for a couple of weeks at a time. And this would be without a complicated computer system having to keep up-to-date and vary benefits instantaneously.
The only complication with such a proposal is that it explicitly discriminates against non-citizens, since such people would not receive the citizen's income, and there would be no benefits system or personal tax allowance for them either. I'm not sure if the Green Party have thought through the logical implications of that, but it still remains an interesting alternative.
There does appear an obvious reason but frankly I'm loath to even contemplate it.
I do accept that there is an element of conservatism in Cameron's world view (the clue is perhaps in the name) and if you are looking for firebrands to overthrow the status quo you are better looking elsewhere (quite where in modern politics is another question).
But the reality is that this government has done remarkable things to reduce unemployment, it has in fact reduced inequality of income quite significantly by maintaining the value of benefits when real wages were falling, it has really tried to give more children from poor backgrounds a better education with the pupil premium and the shakeup of complacency in the educational establishment, it has, somewhat against the trend in western Europe, managed to maintain health spending in real terms and improved the efficiency of that provision by stripping out costs and it has had a socially liberal agenda with changes like gay marriage.
If you are wondering how a social conservative makes his country better one really only needs to look at the record. It will never satisfy the firebrands but it has been good government.
Brent crude has dropped from $115 to under $109 over the last two weeks - so perhaps the 'IRAQ Spike' in pump price will disappear.
Haven't noticed any myself (Filled up @ 132.5 for diesel recently)
Strong GBP vs USD has seen that particular banana skin not really come about for the Gov't.
Make more low skilled jobs available by reducing the competition from overseas immigrants that have more incentive to do them
Make the jobs more attractive by removing benefits from people who refuse to do them
Protectionism at the low end of society is needed, it doesn't need to be a dirty word.
This would also mean that the immigrants that do work here would be of a higher skilllset, have more money, and probably be more inclined to assimilate
Did Dave answer the original question, or did he answer a different question entirely?
That's is why labour is pushing on it.
Whether this is a profitable line politically remains to be seen, and will only become apparent in TV and other media interviews afterward.
Less than 5 years before another round of self-flagellation? How about 40?
Further devastation? Lies?
Maybe the giant spaghetti monster is coming to get you. Stock up on tinfoil mate. LOoks like you're going to need it
A universal income payable to all British nationals? Well, aside from the fact that it would be illegal under EU law, it would have to be a an income payable to all EU citizens that "live" here (i.e have a UK address and have registered), might it not present problems of its own. At what level would it be set? Enough to live on (with the addition of Housing Benefit, obviously)?
Is the proposal actually to make everyone entitled to the old age pension from the moment they reach adulthood and if they care to work they can and keep most of what they earn? That fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the state.
I thought he hadn't answered the original question, but instead reeled off statistics relating to an entirely different one.
I am glad you noticed this as well, and I daresay that it will be pointed out by others at a later date.
Maybe he should just ask about the opinion polls and the 7% leads... that would at least cheer them up I'm sure.
Were this as simple as the reactionary right think it is, it would have been solved decades ago. Thankfully politicians of the sensible centre-left and centre-right realise it's a complex issue with few if any easy answers.
Hopefully you were referring to my zeal for independence, rather than other connotations of monomania.. LOL
1) Companies buying the car parts to make cars move overseas where they can buy cheaper, better parts.
2) To the extent that they don't, the costs are paid by all the companies that use the cars, costing jobs right across the whole economy.
The one you should be particularly worrying about in the next 20 years is (1), because communications technology and better machinery will make it possible to move all kinds of jobs out of the country whenever the government is preventing the workers from moving to the jobs. And when you offshore a job because you banned the person who would have done it from coming, you take some of the few remaining non-mobile support jobs with you.
The coherent thing to do here is to crack down on trade as well to prevent the domestic job from turning into an import, but this policy is very short of mainstream advocates in the UK.
PS Life will go on for me if it is NO, my concern is for my grandchildren.
Unfortunately the people who bought the political class don't want that. They want a massive labour surplus first and then scrap the welfare system.
Instant plantation economy.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/08/london-toxic-oxford-street-polluted-boris-johnson
But this failed attempt at a smear job is perhaps more amusing for connoisseurs:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/08/andrea-leadsom-family-links-offshore-bank-donations-tories
I particularly enjoyed this devastating revelation:
The leak comes after ministers launched a scheme for Jersey account-holders to make disclosures last year. They claim the big challenge the authorities face is secret tax evasion, which is a crime. The chancellor, George Osborne, said in April: "If you're evading tax offshore, there is no safe haven and we will find you."
But the findings contradict this picture of illegality. Many Jersey loopholes used by wealthy Britons to pass on their fortunes appear from our research to have been perfectly legal.
You have to admire their chutzpah in trying to claim that the fact people have arranged their affairs in accordance with the law is a scandal. Would it be better if they were breaking the law?
How about income payable to the unemployed and able to work in return for manual work required for state infrastructure, maintenance and the like, with 2 days a week off to be spent seeking permanent employment at approved local job clubs. Better still, minimal cash payment alongside food, clothing and services vouchers at a level consistent with maintaining an average rented or state home.
Some might say that closing the loopholes would be better. Of course, the people who think that way seldom get heard, but the minority who benefit from them do.
The NUMBER of people waiting for 18, 26, and 52 weeks for operations has reduced dramatically under this Govt. If you think the NHS is worse off under this Govt., then certainly I don't concede that.
Mr Miliband previously told us the NHS was going to die in 90 days. That was political scaremongering of the most despicable kind.
Let's say 63m people in the UK, giving them £5,000 each.
Gross cost of £315 billion
Let's pay an income of £1,000 to the 11m people under the age of 15 (wiki) instead of child benefit: saves £44bn. Net cost of £270bn
That compares to the total cost of the UK welfare system of about £200bn (11/12 - table 2.1)
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
Now clearly there will be some savings from administration, etc, but there is a huge deadweight cost.
How do you make the numbers stack up - even accepting that £5K is not a particularly generous level of basic income.
Our politics is predicated on scaremongering. or hadn't you noticed?
"Thankfully politicians of the sensible centre-left and centre-right realise it's a complex issue with few if any easy answers"
Crikey, Mr. Fett, the old irony meter spiked when I read that, given that a short while ago you had posted:
"The only clean way of doing this is to have some sort of citizen's payment, which is universal. Everyone from your archetypal layabout to your Mayfair billionaire (some of these are the same people!) would get it, unconditionally"
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/gaar.htm
What a pity the last government was so poor on this.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/independence-if-scotland-votes-no-what-next-1-3470698
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28225124
I look forward to your list of instances of where the Tories have scaremongered over the NHS.
Why limit it to the NHS? We have a proposed bill to increase surveillance powers, government is pushing an increase threat of terrorism.
This of course might be entirely coincidental, but it happens way to often for random chance.
Reds under the beds anyone?
It will not solve the problem.
However my real point was that if they expended as much energy on the real big frauds taking place at the high end , then the benefits issue would be less relevant , still an issue for society but not as big a financial issue. Explain how that is one eyed.
Isabel Hardman @IsabelHardman
IDS says to Bryant "this is the best instance of a man in an ill-fitting anorak dancing on the head of a pin".
Isabel Hardman @IsabelHardman
IDS accuses Bryant of a "pompous, ludicrous" performance.
Even the bbc cut off before Bryant even got up for his reply,bbc must have agreed with IDS first tweet above.