Total welfare in England 163,031k Total spent on JSA 3,692k Total spent on Oldies circa 130,000k
State pension is a separate bucket, so your oldies number is wrong.
I am using official Govt statistics not Osbournes gimmick
State pensions, pensions credit, winter fuel allowance tv licences, attendance allowance DLA etc all included in the £163 BN "welfare budget" Oldies account for 80% of the bill JSA for 1.8% of the total "Benefit Expenditure by Country"
If it's 163bn, why did you put 163,031k (=163m) in your figures.
Lefties should leave the numbers alone until they understand them, when they'll likely drift right.
Did he give, 2p or 60p? The Mail and an interpreter went to find out and found that beggar, a girl of 14. Was Ed Miliband worried about GMP's recent bad publicity re protection of vulnerable girls from predators.
Did he give, 2p or 60p? The Mail and an interpreter went to find out and found that beggar, a girl of 14. Was Ed Miliband worried about GMP's recent bad publicity re protection of vulnerable girls from predators.
Simon Danczuk channels Chesterton's The Secret People in The Telegraph:
"To many in the Metropolitan bubbles this is all quaint talk, as the working classes to them are an invisible people, an all but extinct tribe. But there’s a lot more of them than they realise and they won’t be beaten down and ignored forever."
I am using official Govt statistics not Osbournes gimmick
Itemised bills are gimmicks? Have to disagree. They are the way forward.
Very transparent charging and very clear links between taxes/contributions and services/insurance payouts should become the norm.
Leaving Welfare as an opaque block is not an itemized bill. Seeing it broken down and how much of that welfare is even more free stuff for over 65s on top of the pension as opposed to JSA would be interesting.
If Osborne had shown welfare including pensions, he would have been called misleading.
Now that he split them out for purposes of clarity, it's being called an accounting gimmick.
The hypocritical left on full display.
How do you know how anyone would have reacted to something Osborne has not done? You are inventing something so that you can call lefties hypocritical. Should I draw conclusions about the right because you have done this?
He certainly didn't send her to school - where she should have been aged 14.
What the big Issue are playing at is a mystery to me - I feel they have lost their way somewhat.
The house of relatives pulling in 550 quid a week in benefits certainly raised a few hackles, not least in readers that had contributed to their state pension all their working lives and were receiving less from the government that these "new arrivals". Farage must be distraught at all these stories coming to light.
£550x52 = £28,600, what happened to the £25K benefit cap ?
Would Labour agree to a Westminster coalition with the SNP next year in exchange for another Indyref?
SNP: How can a party that is (still) committed to breaking-up the UK with a straight face enter into a UK government?
Labour: Unless it has a death wish, how can a party elevate such people to positions of authority over the whole of the UK? (remembering that, unlike the present coalition, only such larger party can suffer the subsequent displeasure of the voters, since 92% can't vote either for or against the SNP)
All MPs are equal and all MPs should be allowed authority over the whole of the UK if they can enter into government.
But ...
The SNP would, I think, be more likely to go for a s & c agreement. The party is already forbidden to go into coalition with Tories (by a party conference motion, I believe). And it has the experience of the first SNP administration, from the governing side.
As for Labour, assuming Labour victory in the UK but not England, the SNP still wouldn't vote on English laws etc., so a Labour-SNP coalition would be a funny sort of three-legged coalition unless the UK administration was properly reorganised into UK and England departments - Home Office split, etc. I think we can all judge how likely that is. Even then, Labour would still need a very strong leader in London to bring SLAB to heel given SLAB attitudes to the SNP, or risk a real split. Which strong leadership would be rather contrary to SNP principles ...
On the second point, note the theoretical possibility that the SNP could form a parliamentary alliance with, say, PC and the Greens, which obviates that objection to some extent. [edit: redundant verbiage deleted]
General statistical point, not arguing about these in particular. If you have a poll with a lot of results (whether it's a lot of subsamples or a lot of seats), one or two of them will be surprising due entirely to random distribution. It's a fundamental mistake to pick on that as showing something significant, unless it's confirmed by a further poll in the same place.
Indeed.
The ratios of LD-Tory and LD-Lab from Ashcroft's last bunch are:
I noted that Solihull was 1 also on the recent Lib/Lab marginals.
My point really is that there appears to be some real variation around antifrank's entirely reasonable 3-1 ratio, and there does appear to be some reasonably distinct regional element to it.
Namely, London Liberals will flood towards Labour, whereas it's less pronounced in middle England, and there is also a much bigger UKIP offset there too.
Did he give, 2p or 60p? The Mail and an interpreter went to find out and found that beggar, a girl of 14. Was Ed Miliband worried about GMP's recent bad publicity re protection of vulnerable girls from predators.
Would Labour agree to a Westminster coalition with the SNP next year in exchange for another Indyref?
SNP: How can a party that is (still) committed to breaking-up the UK with a straight face enter into a UK government?
Labour: Unless it has a death wish, how can a party elevate such people to positions of authority over the whole of the UK? (remembering that, unlike the present coalition, only such larger party can suffer the subsequent displeasure of the voters, since 92% can't vote either for or against the SNP)
All MPs are equal and all MPs should be allowed authority over the whole of the UK if they can enter into government.
Yes. They should be allowed authority over all UK-wide issues. What they shouldn't be allowed authority over are English-only issues. Nor should a government that only gets in on their votes.
If Osborne had shown welfare including pensions, he would have been called misleading.
Now that he split them out for purposes of clarity, it's being called an accounting gimmick.
The hypocritical left on full display.
How do you know how anyone would have reacted to something Osborne has not done? You are inventing something so that you can call lefties hypocritical. Should I draw conclusions about the right because you have done this?
Because whenever this discussion has come up in the past on the size of welfare spending, "most of it is actually pensions" is the line that always comes back.
Leaving Welfare as an opaque block is not an itemized bill. Seeing it broken down and how much of that welfare is even more free stuff for over 65s on top of the pension as opposed to JSA would be interesting.
I agree, and I suspect he's waiting for people to make that point for him.
It's about getting people to talk and think about where the money is going.
Leaving Welfare as an opaque block is not an itemized bill. Seeing it broken down and how much of that welfare is even more free stuff for over 65s on top of the pension as opposed to JSA would be interesting.
I agree, and I suspect he's waiting for people to make that point for him.
It's about getting people to talk and think about where the money is going.
There is certainly a balance to be struck on the level of detail - certainly won't please everyone.
Would Labour agree to a Westminster coalition with the SNP next year in exchange for another Indyref?
SNP: How can a party that is (still) committed to breaking-up the UK with a straight face enter into a UK government?
Labour: Unless it has a death wish, how can a party elevate such people to positions of authority over the whole of the UK? (remembering that, unlike the present coalition, only such larger party can suffer the subsequent displeasure of the voters, since 92% can't vote either for or against the SNP)
All MPs are equal and all MPs should be allowed authority over the whole of the UK if they can enter into government.
Yes. They should be allowed authority over all UK-wide issues. What they shouldn't be allowed authority over are English-only issues. Nor should a government that only gets in on their votes.
I have noted elsewhere that the Scots themselves are substantially (and logically enough) in favour of EV4EL.
And I did point out in my comments the practical problems of a Labour-SNP coalition given that the SNP are following that rule anyway.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
When poling firms give ukip the same level of respectability as other major parties, ie prompting, UKIPs score goes up significantly, so it would seem there are indeed "shy kippers"
I think you are inferring too much from a methodological change.
Guardian analysis of Scottish Labour seats at risk:
Labour faces losing up to 20 seats in Scotland as SNP support surges Analysis of voting in independence referendum and latest polls suggest Westminster seats at risk from ‘yes alliance’
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
How many people read/heard the 2p story. How many people read/heard the "actually it was 60-70p" follow up How many people didn't care how much he gave and just saw the awkwardness How many people didn't care how much or how awkward but dismissed it as a stunt. Was the overall effect good or bad for Ed Its just politics.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
You are so right - it matters not that she was 14 nor a professional beggar - it was all in the amount <£1 that Ed passed over..
Which set of figures in Lord A's polling did you use? There are 4 possibilities.
National VI gross and net Constituency VI gross and net.
You also do not make clear whether you refer to actual numbers in poll or percentages.
More importantly the critical numbers are the differential with the Tories. If CON is losing more then bad news for DC.
Applying your formula to CON as well would give better representation.
Constituency VI, and actual numbers of voters rather than percentages.
I'm just trying to make a general point that the effect of LD switchers in favour of Labour varies according to region, and I'm struck by the Midlands numbers in comparison to London.
I have a list of Tory:UKIP switcher ratios (by voters, not percentages) also, across Ashcroft's marginals.
Again, there is a very big variation in where UKIP are drawing numbers from in different regions.
UKIP are taking votes at a rate of 8-1, 9-1 etc from the Tories in the SW compared to from labour.
Most of Ashcroft's May marginals (often in the Midlands) have something like 6-4.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
You are so right - it matters not that she was 14 nor a professional beggar - it was all in the amount <£1 that Ed passed over..</p>
Ah, I see. Ed was supposed to ask for personal data before donating.
I find it bewildering that more than 4 years into a Tory led government WTC and associated benefits are still being treated as "negative income tax" rather than spending. What possible motivation has there been to keep this Brownian fiction going?
I can only conclude that the surge in low paid employment has caused a similar surge in the cost of these benefits and that it suits the Chancellor to keep obscure the fact that he has not reduced the benefits bill, quite the reverse.
But even then our overly political Chancellor must be aware that showing that "austerity" has in fact been accompanied with an increase in social spending is not all bad. Where on earth do Labour go from there?
What the present obscurantism is achieving is the legend that our benefits are very largely spent on the old. They receive a major part but it is being exaggerated, very much so.
And if we had accurate figures we might encourage a better understanding as to why the deficit won't go down.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
Begs a few questions about giving money to 14 year olds on the mean streets of a big city, where the police have admitted that they have failed vulnerable girls. How does Labour deal the problem of disenchanted working class voters in same cities?
Then why did GMP tweet re vagrancy laws, once they found out what Ed M had done. The guy lacks common sense, and political nous. Get rid of him, before he destroys your party.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
You are so right - it matters not that she was 14 nor a professional beggar - it was all in the amount <£1 that Ed passed over..</p>
Back on planet earth...
Back on Planet Earth, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
How many people read/heard the 2p story. How many people read/heard the "actually it was 60-70p" follow up How many people didn't care how much he gave and just saw the awkwardness How many people didn't care how much or how awkward but dismissed it as a stunt. Was the overall effect good or bad for Ed Its just politics.
It matters very much to the Right, hence all the spleen rupturing all around the rightwing internet.
Real voters though?
You have to wonder why the Tories can't break the *very low* 30s if all these Ed smears made a difference.
Interesting that the Kippers want to row back on welfare cuts but be harsh on the the aid and the EU budget - which is at the bottom of the table.
The last two paragraphs of that article are dismally predictable.
Labour politicians seem to be trying to fail the Turing test. Irrespective of the topic, they trot out their small set of standard lines, time after time.
Won't this show that EU immigrants don't claim much in benefits, and so make Cameron's tough stance / red line seem a bit pointless?
Could it be argues that lots of immigrants coming over and doing all the menial jobs, coupled with our willingness to hand out welfare to indigenous lazy people who won;t do said jobs, DOES contribute to higher welfare bills?
A kipper might argue that keeping out the immigrants but forcing "brits" to do these jobs rather than opt for a life on the dole would be the best of both worlds?
If we just stop East European immigration (somehow, magically...) UK plc would be in trouble. Fact is it's a great source of hard working labour, and true, they don't claim much benefit themselves
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
You are so right - it matters not that she was 14 nor a professional beggar - it was all in the amount <£1 that Ed passed over..</p>
Ah, I see. Ed was supposed to ask for personal data before donating.
Back on planet earth...
Thus the risks of giving to a beggar - which I would never ever do under any circumstances - it is not a constructive thing to do.
@AndyYoungSFHA: Lord Barnett, dies aged 91, the Labour party has announced. In Scotland he was 92, in Wales 90 and in Northern Ireland just 89 years old...
If Osborne had shown welfare including pensions, he would have been called misleading.
Now that he split them out for purposes of clarity, it's being called an accounting gimmick.
The hypocritical left on full display.
How do you know how anyone would have reacted to something Osborne has not done? You are inventing something so that you can call lefties hypocritical. Should I draw conclusions about the right because you have done this?
Because whenever this discussion has come up in the past on the size of welfare spending, "most of it is actually pensions" is the line that always comes back.
"Most of it is actually spent on the sick and pensioners" is the line and is true and this is what Osborne is choosing to obscure. There is nothing wrong in pointing this out and absolutely nothing hypocritical in doing so.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
The generosity of the British state with taxpayers' money warms the heart; " Rebeca lives with her aunt, mother-of-nine Livia Stoica, 35, in a four-bedroom end-of-terrace home in the Levenshulme area of Manchester. Mrs Stoica, a Big Issue seller, has lived in the UK for seven years and rents the property privately for £720 a month. She receives £550 in benefits a week but no housing benefit."
National Insurance is a scheme where you pay weekly contributions partly as a health insurance and partly as a pension investment to be paid out in retirement.
There is confusion about whether the state pension is funded by peoples previous NI contributions (not welfare) or paid out of general taxation of the current population (welfare).
Without having the figures it is my impression that an actuarial calculation of previous NI contributions would not pay out the current state pension even ignoring the health insurance aspect.
Nevertheless, it is surely wrong not to take account of people make NI contributions to earn a future state pension when classifying all pensions as coming from taxation rather than a government organised savings scheme.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
You mean like in the Independent?
Ed Miliband: 'No photo opps' Labour leader takes biggest photo opp of the year thus far
After failing in his mission to ‘fit in’ with the working classes by eating a bacon sandwich normally, and receiving some criticism for his relentless selfie-snapping, Ed Miliband all but turned his back on every politician’s favourite publicity tool ̶ the un-humble photo opportunity......
But it seems he’s had a change of heart. Because ‘no photo ops’ Ed happens to have opted in on a classic photo opportunity for any hearts-and-minds desiring politician – one of him giving money to a beggar on the street.
Images of him dropping small change into the outstretched cup of a homeless women quickly circulated on Twitter, with many noting the careful positioning of a press photographer in the background, cleverly poised to snap the philanthropic moment in action.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
The generosity of the British state with taxpayers' money warms the heart; " Rebeca lives with her aunt, mother-of-nine Livia Stoica, 35, in a four-bedroom end-of-terrace home in the Levenshulme area of Manchester. Mrs Stoica, a Big Issue seller, has lived in the UK for seven years and rents the property privately for £720 a month. She receives £550 in benefits a week but no housing benefit."
What would make up £550 a week if not housing benefit ?
Who will be first to try it on with HMRC that they have shredded expense details for the same period. Is it any wonder that the NOTA party gains traction?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
How many people read/heard the 2p story. How many people read/heard the "actually it was 60-70p" follow up How many people didn't care how much he gave and just saw the awkwardness How many people didn't care how much or how awkward but dismissed it as a stunt. Was the overall effect good or bad for Ed Its just politics.
It matters very much to the Right, hence all the spleen rupturing all around the rightwing internet.
Real voters though?
That must be why the staunchly Right Wing HIGNFY and Radio 4's News Quiz are openly mocking Miliband, Arch Thatcherite Jeremy Hardy taking the proverbial out of him.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
The generosity of the British state with taxpayers' money warms the heart; " Rebeca lives with her aunt, mother-of-nine Livia Stoica, 35, in a four-bedroom end-of-terrace home in the Levenshulme area of Manchester. Mrs Stoica, a Big Issue seller, has lived in the UK for seven years and rents the property privately for £720 a month. She receives £550 in benefits a week but no housing benefit."
I'm afraid this rightwing attack is getting more and more absurd.
Are you suggesting the collection and audit of detailed personal data before dropping coins in the cups of beggars?
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
You are so right - it matters not that she was 14 nor a professional beggar - it was all in the amount <£1 that Ed passed over..</p>
Ah, I see. Ed was supposed to ask for personal data before donating.
Back on planet earth...
Thus the risks of giving to a beggar - which I would never ever do under any circumstances - it is not a constructive thing to do.
This is the risk. But that is not what Miliband was attacked for.
The t-shirt thing is another matter. He deserves both barrels on that.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
You are so right - it matters not that she was 14 nor a professional beggar - it was all in the amount <£1 that Ed passed over..</p>
Ah, I see. Ed was supposed to ask for personal data before donating.
Back on planet earth...
Thus the risks of giving to a beggar - which I would never ever do under any circumstances - it is not a constructive thing to do.
As Manchester City Council themselves say
"Charities working with people struggling with drug and alcohol problems are backing a campaign urging city centre visitors not to give money to beggars.
Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Police are now putting up posters across the city centre with the message ‘don’t fund the habit, fund the charities’ as part of a campaign backed by organisations such as the Booth Centre.
"Begging is a humiliating activity which destroys people's self-esteem and often leads them to give up trying to make a better life for themselves. Giving to someone who is begging will do nothing to help them move off the streets or improve their quality of life.".....
"I would urge shoppers not to give money to beggars as it fuels the problem, but instead perhaps donate some cash or loose change to a homeless charity."
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
You are so right - it matters not that she was 14 nor a professional beggar - it was all in the amount <£1 that Ed passed over..</p>
Ah, I see. Ed was supposed to ask for personal data before donating.
Back on planet earth...
Thus the risks of giving to a beggar - which I would never ever do under any circumstances - it is not a constructive thing to do.
This is the risk. But that is not what Miliband was attacked for.
The t-shirt thing is another matter. He deserves both barrels on that.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
The generosity of the British state with taxpayers' money warms the heart; " Rebeca lives with her aunt, mother-of-nine Livia Stoica, 35, in a four-bedroom end-of-terrace home in the Levenshulme area of Manchester. Mrs Stoica, a Big Issue seller, has lived in the UK for seven years and rents the property privately for £720 a month. She receives £550 in benefits a week but no housing benefit."
Are you suggesting the collection and audit of detailed personal data before dropping coins in the cups of beggars?
No, just not encouraging Vagrancy, which the Greater Manchester Police pointed out is against the law.....
Would Labour agree to a Westminster coalition with the SNP next year in exchange for another Indyref?
SNP: How can a party that is (still) committed to breaking-up the UK with a straight face enter into a UK government?
Labour: Unless it has a death wish, how can a party elevate such people to positions of authority over the whole of the UK? (remembering that, unlike the present coalition, only such larger party can suffer the subsequent displeasure of the voters, since 92% can't vote either for or against the SNP)
All MPs are equal and all MPs should be allowed authority over the whole of the UK if they can enter into government.
But ...
The SNP would, I think, be more likely to go for a s & c agreement. The party is already forbidden to go into coalition with Tories (by a party conference motion, I believe). And it has the experience of the first SNP administration, from the governing side.
As for Labour, assuming Labour victory in the UK but not England, the SNP still wouldn't vote on English laws etc., so a Labour-SNP coalition would be a funny sort of three-legged coalition unless the UK administration was properly reorganised into UK and England departments - Home Office split, etc. I think we can all judge how likely that is. Even then, Labour would still need a very strong leader in London to bring SLAB to heel given SLAB attitudes to the SNP, or risk a real split. Which strong leadership would be rather contrary to SNP principles ...
On the second point, note the theoretical possibility that the SNP could form a parliamentary alliance with, say, PC and the Greens, which obviates that objection to some extent. [edit: redundant verbiage deleted]
In essence then you agree with me. It's a nonsensical idea under current constitutional arrangements, as well as being politically impossible for either party.
Related objections pertain to the idea of a Tory-DUP coalition...
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
The generosity of the British state with taxpayers' money warms the heart; " Rebeca lives with her aunt, mother-of-nine Livia Stoica, 35, in a four-bedroom end-of-terrace home in the Levenshulme area of Manchester. Mrs Stoica, a Big Issue seller, has lived in the UK for seven years and rents the property privately for £720 a month. She receives £550 in benefits a week but no housing benefit."
What would make up £550 a week if not housing benefit ?
Tax Credits. By selling the BIg Issue, someone can claim to be self-employed and therefore eligible for benefits.
According to IDS: "A good example of that is the Big Issue, a magazine which is a brilliant idea by a brilliant individual who himself was homeless. It is wonderful.
But actually what is happening progressively, more and more, is people mostly from southern and eastern Europe have actually ended up being Big Issue sellers and they claim, as self-employed, immediately, tax credits.
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
How many people read/heard the 2p story. How many people read/heard the "actually it was 60-70p" follow up How many people didn't care how much he gave and just saw the awkwardness How many people didn't care how much or how awkward but dismissed it as a stunt. Was the overall effect good or bad for Ed Its just politics.
It matters very much to the Right, hence all the spleen rupturing all around the rightwing internet.
Real voters though?
You have to wonder why the Tories can't break the *very low* 30s if all these Ed smears made a difference.
To be fair Ben it doesn't matter to all of us on the Right. Some of us fully expect our politicians to be less than perfect, to make the occasional mistake and to get caught out looking a bit daft at times. We actually don't want politicians who so stage manage every single moment of their lives that they always look practically superhuman in their composure.
Miliband's recent supposed mistakes - the Bacon Sandwich and the Beggar - do nothing to change my view of him one way or another. I still personally don't like his policies but I find the whole idea that a couple of PR cock-ups make any difference as to his abilities or otherwise as a politician rather fatuous. If anything they make me a touch more sympathetic to him as a real person.
Of course the party fanatics on both sides will always look to take advantage of slips by their opponents but in the end that says more about them than it does about the target of their scorn.
If Osborne had shown welfare including pensions, he would have been called misleading.
Now that he split them out for purposes of clarity, it's being called an accounting gimmick.
The hypocritical left on full display.
How do you know how anyone would have reacted to something Osborne has not done? You are inventing something so that you can call lefties hypocritical. Should I draw conclusions about the right because you have done this?
Because whenever this discussion has come up in the past on the size of welfare spending, "most of it is actually pensions" is the line that always comes back.
It would be great to have more clarity on the size of the social security bill for: pensioners, out-of-work benefits (for those able to work), in-work benefits (including tax credits), benefits for the disabled and benefits for those unable to work. Some of these overlap, though.
Too much detail can sometimes be used to confuse, but in general I think more information is a good thing.
The figures, though, are surely wrong? I thought that welfare spending was only greater than the Health budget if the state pension was included as part of welfare - so why is the state pension listed separately?
It looks like the information has been presented in a way designed to fit a preconceived opinion, rather than to present unbiased information. Lumping together in-work and out-of-work benefits in the same total is massively misleading.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
The generosity of the British state with taxpayers' money warms the heart; " Rebeca lives with her aunt, mother-of-nine Livia Stoica, 35, in a four-bedroom end-of-terrace home in the Levenshulme area of Manchester. Mrs Stoica, a Big Issue seller, has lived in the UK for seven years and rents the property privately for £720 a month. She receives £550 in benefits a week but no housing benefit."
What would make up £550 a week if not housing benefit ?
Tax Credits. By selling the BIg Issue, someone can claim to be self-employed and therefore eligible for benefits.
According to IDS: "A good example of that is the Big Issue, a magazine which is a brilliant idea by a brilliant individual who himself was homeless. It is wonderful.
But actually what is happening progressively, more and more, is people mostly from southern and eastern Europe have actually ended up being Big Issue sellers and they claim, as self-employed, immediately, tax credits.
Yet another example of what I was talking about. Unless and until we face the truth about what tax credits cost this country we will continue to make poor decisions on the basis of inaccurate information.
Tax credits are a good thing which help families. Encouraging those who are unemployed to provide the structure of employment into their lives is a good thing. Making work pay is a good thing. How much of this good thing can we actually afford? That is the real question.
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
The generosity of the British state with taxpayers' money warms the heart; " Rebeca lives with her aunt, mother-of-nine Livia Stoica, 35, in a four-bedroom end-of-terrace home in the Levenshulme area of Manchester. Mrs Stoica, a Big Issue seller, has lived in the UK for seven years and rents the property privately for £720 a month. She receives £550 in benefits a week but no housing benefit."
What would make up £550 a week if not housing benefit ?
In Livia's case child benefit. It's a disgrace that she gets so little and has only four bedrooms for herself, her nine kids and her niece.
What is an "S&C agreement"? Google is unhelpful...
Supply and Confidence
Which means the opposition party will agree to support the Government on Finance Bills and any vote of confidence in order that some business can proceed in parliament.
When poling firms give ukip the same level of respectability as other major parties, ie prompting, UKIPs score goes up significantly, so it would seem there are indeed "shy kippers"
I think you are inferring too much from a methodological change.
When prompted the score goes up, hardly rocket science
“Thieves entered an outbuilding between 6.30pm on Tuesday October 28 and 7am on Wednesday October 29 and took items including a green Polaris Ranger off-road vehicle, and the occupant’s brown and white Springer Spaniel dog.
It is believed that a horse box vehicle was seen in the area at around 3am on Wednesday, October 29 which is suspected of being used to convey the Polaris Ranger during the theft.”
The rightwing's hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's donation to the Manchester street beggar is another fine example of how conservatism is eating itself.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
In none of the photos or reports does it show or say there were coinS involved. If only one coin was given it is certainly more lilkely to be 2p or £2 unless Ed has a stash of 60p coins no one else has.
The furore, if we can elevate it to that, over beggargate strikes me as entirely manufactured. I have heard no-one even mention it outside this fair website.
Interesting that the Kippers want to row back on welfare cuts but be harsh on the the aid and the EU budget - which is at the bottom of the table.
The last two paragraphs of that article are dismally predictable.
Labour politicians seem to be trying to fail the Turing test. Irrespective of the topic, they trot out their small set of standard lines, time after time.
Won't this show that EU immigrants don't claim much in benefits, and so make Cameron's tough stance / red line seem a bit pointless?
Could it be argues that lots of immigrants coming over and doing all the menial jobs, coupled with our willingness to hand out welfare to indigenous lazy people who won;t do said jobs, DOES contribute to higher welfare bills?
A kipper might argue that keeping out the immigrants but forcing "brits" to do these jobs rather than opt for a life on the dole would be the best of both worlds?
If we just stop East European immigration (somehow, magically...) UK plc would be in trouble. Fact is it's a great source of hard working labour, and true, they don't claim much benefit themselves
Your middle paragraph isn't a million miles from my view that is true... I think people on the dole for three months should be forced to do these jobs at least part time
It doesn't take magic to stop Eastern European immigration though, just a sensible immigration policy rather than the free for all we have now
Many people try to pain t UKIP as extreme, but when it comes to immigration, the extrems are the BNP who want none, and the pro EU parties who want no restrictions. UKIP are the sensible middle way
If Osborne had shown welfare including pensions, he would have been called misleading.
Now that he split them out for purposes of clarity, it's being called an accounting gimmick.
The hypocritical left on full display.
How do you know how anyone would have reacted to something Osborne has not done? You are inventing something so that you can call lefties hypocritical. Should I draw conclusions about the right because you have done this?
Because whenever this discussion has come up in the past on the size of welfare spending, "most of it is actually pensions" is the line that always comes back.
It would be great to have more clarity on the size of the social security bill for: pensioners, out-of-work benefits (for those able to work), in-work benefits (including tax credits), benefits for the disabled and benefits for those unable to work. Some of these overlap, though.
Too much detail can sometimes be used to confuse, but in general I think more information is a good thing.
The figures, though, are surely wrong? I thought that welfare spending was only greater than the Health budget if the state pension was included as part of welfare - so why is the state pension listed separately?
It looks like the information has been presented in a way designed to fit a preconceived opinion, rather than to present unbiased information. Lumping together in-work and out-of-work benefits in the same total is massively misleading.
For the life of me I cannot see why George Osborne would want to give people a false impression of what most welfare spending goes on.
The furore, if we can elevate it to that, over beggargate strikes me as entirely manufactured. I have heard no-one even mention it outside this fair website.
People outside of this fair website didn't mention Brown's despicable abolition of the 10p tax rate to fund his basic rate cut until about 11 months after he announced it in his budget. It still ended up having a huge impact.
I'm sure that whatever nonsense has gone on around Ed Miliband now will not be so important, but... Does anyone remember whether there were any remotely similar stories about Blair leading up to 1997? I know Cameron had the whole cycling thing with the chauffeur following behind in the car.
The furore, if we can elevate it to that, over beggargate strikes me as entirely manufactured. I have heard no-one even mention it outside this fair website.
Ed would have been better of not giving the money to the beggar, and using the money to buy some fish in Morrrisons.
If Osborne had shown welfare including pensions, he would have been called misleading.
Now that he split them out for purposes of clarity, it's being called an accounting gimmick.
The hypocritical left on full display.
How do you know how anyone would have reacted to something Osborne has not done? You are inventing something so that you can call lefties hypocritical. Should I draw conclusions about the right because you have done this?
Because whenever this discussion has come up in the past on the size of welfare spending, "most of it is actually pensions" is the line that always comes back.
It would be great to have more clarity on the size of the social security bill for: pensioners, out-of-work benefits (for those able to work), in-work benefits (including tax credits), benefits for the disabled and benefits for those unable to work. Some of these overlap, though.
Too much detail can sometimes be used to confuse, but in general I think more information is a good thing.
The figures, though, are surely wrong? I thought that welfare spending was only greater than the Health budget if the state pension was included as part of welfare - so why is the state pension listed separately?
It looks like the information has been presented in a way designed to fit a preconceived opinion, rather than to present unbiased information. Lumping together in-work and out-of-work benefits in the same total is massively misleading.
For the life of me I cannot see why George Osborne would want to give people a false impression of what most welfare spending goes on.
I'm half surprised that it isn't labelled as "spending on skivers"...
The furore, if we can elevate it to that, over beggargate strikes me as entirely manufactured. I have heard no-one even mention it outside this fair website.
Ed would have been better of not giving the money to the beggar, and using the money to buy some fish in Morrrisons.
He needs to be careful - Osborne ended his political career by weeping at a funeral.
I like the idea of the tax summary statement. The Government should also add a personalised spending summary as well, so that so many of the angriest voters could see how much they are in fact cosseted.
It's an excellent idea, Antifrank.
It would sit well too with one of my own favorites. All tax returns should be open to view by anybody and everybody. This would dispose of a lot of myth, and cut evasion dramatically overnight.
Comments
Now that he split them out for purposes of clarity, it's being called an accounting gimmick.
The hypocritical left on full display.
But - whoops - Labour lead in the polls.
Lefties should leave the numbers alone until they understand them, when they'll likely drift right.
Very transparent charging and very clear links between taxes/contributions and services/insurance payouts should become the norm.
National VI gross and net
Constituency VI gross and net.
You also do not make clear whether you refer to actual numbers in poll or percentages.
More importantly the critical numbers are the differential with the Tories. If CON is losing more then bad news for DC.
Applying your formula to CON as well would give better representation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2818133/I-live-5-day-says-beggar-aged-14-Miliband-gave-money-Girl-says-Labour-leader-dropped-60-70p-cup-impressed-man-suit-stop.html
Perhaps a can of worms has been opened, surely it can't get worse for him this week?
Miss Jones, you're a star
What the big Issue are playing at is a mystery to me - I feel they have lost their way somewhat.
£550x52 = £28,600, what happened to the £25K benefit cap ?
But ...
The SNP would, I think, be more likely to go for a s & c agreement. The party is already forbidden to go into coalition with Tories (by a party conference motion, I believe). And it has the experience of the first SNP administration, from the governing side.
As for Labour, assuming Labour victory in the UK but not England, the SNP still wouldn't vote on English laws etc., so a Labour-SNP coalition would be a funny sort of three-legged coalition unless the UK administration was properly reorganised into UK and England departments - Home Office split, etc. I think we can all judge how likely that is. Even then, Labour would still need a very strong leader in London to bring SLAB to heel given SLAB attitudes to the SNP, or risk a real split. Which strong leadership would be rather contrary to SNP principles ...
On the second point, note the theoretical possibility that the SNP could form a parliamentary alliance with, say, PC and the Greens, which obviates that objection to some extent. [edit: redundant verbiage deleted]
The ratios of LD-Tory and LD-Lab from Ashcroft's last bunch are:
Nuneaton 0.9 (to Lab compared to 1 to Tory)
Brighton Kemptown 1.1
Hove 1.8
Halesowen 1.9
Ipswich 1.9
Gloucester 2.4
Pudsey 3.4
Hastings 3.6
Brentford 3.7
Corby 4.8
Enfield 7.2
I noted that Solihull was 1 also on the recent Lib/Lab marginals.
My point really is that there appears to be some real variation around antifrank's entirely reasonable 3-1 ratio, and there does appear to be some reasonably distinct regional element to it.
Namely, London Liberals will flood towards Labour, whereas it's less pronounced in middle England, and there is also a much bigger UKIP offset there too.
It's about getting people to talk and think about where the money is going.
And I did point out in my comments the practical problems of a Labour-SNP coalition given that the SNP are following that rule anyway.
DId you all really believe Ed had donated just a tuppence?
Are you really that blinkered by rightwing partisanship to not stop to breathe for two seconds and wonder just how damaging a 2p donation really would be, and thus using Occam's razor it was very unlikely to be the truth?
Labour faces losing up to 20 seats in Scotland as SNP support surges
Analysis of voting in independence referendum and latest polls suggest Westminster seats at risk from ‘yes alliance’
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2014/nov/03/labour-party-seats-scotland-snp-independence-referendum-yes-alliance
How many people read/heard the "actually it was 60-70p" follow up
How many people didn't care how much he gave and just saw the awkwardness
How many people didn't care how much or how awkward but dismissed it as a stunt.
Was the overall effect good or bad for Ed
Its just politics.
I'm just trying to make a general point that the effect of LD switchers in favour of Labour varies according to region, and I'm struck by the Midlands numbers in comparison to London.
I have a list of Tory:UKIP switcher ratios (by voters, not percentages) also, across Ashcroft's marginals.
Again, there is a very big variation in where UKIP are drawing numbers from in different regions.
UKIP are taking votes at a rate of 8-1, 9-1 etc from the Tories in the SW compared to from labour.
Most of Ashcroft's May marginals (often in the Midlands) have something like 6-4.
Back on planet earth...
I can only conclude that the surge in low paid employment has caused a similar surge in the cost of these benefits and that it suits the Chancellor to keep obscure the fact that he has not reduced the benefits bill, quite the reverse.
But even then our overly political Chancellor must be aware that showing that "austerity" has in fact been accompanied with an increase in social spending is not all bad. Where on earth do Labour go from there?
What the present obscurantism is achieving is the legend that our benefits are very largely spent on the old. They receive a major part but it is being exaggerated, very much so.
And if we had accurate figures we might encourage a better understanding as to why the deficit won't go down.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/24/labour-ukip-appeal-to-angry-white-voters
Then why did GMP tweet re vagrancy laws, once they found out what Ed M had done. The guy lacks common sense, and political nous. Get rid of him, before he destroys your party.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-give-ed-miliband-ticking-8031545
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2014/nov/03/labour-party-seats-scotland-snp-independence-referendum-yes-alliance?CMP=twt_gu
Why should you get to vote for an MP who can decide on my state health service policy, but doesn't get to decide on yours?
How do you think Ed looked?
Real voters though?
You have to wonder why the Tories can't break the *very low* 30s if all these Ed smears made a difference.
A kipper might argue that keeping out the immigrants but forcing "brits" to do these jobs rather than opt for a life on the dole would be the best of both worlds?
If we just stop East European immigration (somehow, magically...) UK plc would be in trouble. Fact is it's a great source of hard working labour, and true, they don't claim much benefit themselves
An English Parliament resolves this very neatly and gives the English equality with the Scottish.
" Rebeca lives with her aunt, mother-of-nine Livia Stoica, 35, in a four-bedroom end-of-terrace home in the Levenshulme area of Manchester.
Mrs Stoica, a Big Issue seller, has lived in the UK for seven years and rents the property privately for £720 a month. She receives £550 in benefits a week but no housing benefit."
There is confusion about whether the state pension is funded by peoples previous NI contributions (not welfare) or paid out of general taxation of the current population (welfare).
Without having the figures it is my impression that an actuarial calculation of previous NI contributions would not pay out the current state pension even ignoring the health insurance aspect.
Nevertheless, it is surely wrong not to take account of people make NI contributions to earn a future state pension when classifying all pensions as coming from taxation rather than a government organised savings scheme.
Ed Miliband: 'No photo opps' Labour leader takes biggest photo opp of the year thus far
After failing in his mission to ‘fit in’ with the working classes by eating a bacon sandwich normally, and receiving some criticism for his relentless selfie-snapping, Ed Miliband all but turned his back on every politician’s favourite publicity tool ̶ the un-humble photo opportunity......
But it seems he’s had a change of heart. Because ‘no photo ops’ Ed happens to have opted in on a classic photo opportunity for any hearts-and-minds desiring politician – one of him giving money to a beggar on the street.
Images of him dropping small change into the outstretched cup of a homeless women quickly circulated on Twitter, with many noting the careful positioning of a press photographer in the background, cleverly poised to snap the philanthropic moment in action.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ed-miliband-no-photo-opps-labour-leader-takes-biggest-photo-opp-of-the-year-thus-far-9831681.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11204405/MPs-to-escape-expenses-investigations-after-paperwork-destroyed-by-Parliament.html
Who will be first to try it on with HMRC that they have shredded expense details for the same period. Is it any wonder that the NOTA party gains traction?
Miliband's a bit of a tool.
If you're too ashamed to admit being a Milibeliever we'll all understand.
Are you suggesting the collection and audit of detailed personal data before dropping coins in the cups of beggars?
The t-shirt thing is another matter. He deserves both barrels on that.
As Manchester City Council themselves say
"Charities working with people struggling with drug and alcohol problems are backing a campaign urging city centre visitors not to give money to beggars.
Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Police are now putting up posters across the city centre with the message ‘don’t fund the habit, fund the charities’ as part of a campaign backed by organisations such as the Booth Centre.
"Begging is a humiliating activity which destroys people's self-esteem and often leads them to give up trying to make a better life for themselves. Giving to someone who is begging will do nothing to help them move off the streets or improve their quality of life.".....
"I would urge shoppers not to give money to beggars as it fuels the problem, but instead perhaps donate some cash or loose change to a homeless charity."
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/news/article/6582/shoppers_urged_-_fund_charities_not_beggars
Running around hysterically pointing at Ed Miliband every time he passes wind is a rightwing trait at the moment.
Related objections pertain to the idea of a Tory-DUP coalition...
I think it's Mosley Street
I willing to do some research and interview this beggar myself.
#TheThingsI'mWillingToDoForPBDuringMyLunchHour
By selling the BIg Issue, someone can claim to be self-employed and therefore eligible for benefits.
According to IDS:
"A good example of that is the Big Issue, a magazine which is a brilliant idea by a brilliant individual who himself was homeless. It is wonderful.
But actually what is happening progressively, more and more, is people mostly from southern and eastern Europe have actually ended up being Big Issue sellers and they claim, as self-employed, immediately, tax credits.
So when we talk about benefits, they are not just out-of-work benefits, they are also in-work benefits that are being claimed."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jun/05/the-big-issue-iain-duncan-smith
Miliband's recent supposed mistakes - the Bacon Sandwich and the Beggar - do nothing to change my view of him one way or another. I still personally don't like his policies but I find the whole idea that a couple of PR cock-ups make any difference as to his abilities or otherwise as a politician rather fatuous. If anything they make me a touch more sympathetic to him as a real person.
Of course the party fanatics on both sides will always look to take advantage of slips by their opponents but in the end that says more about them than it does about the target of their scorn.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/10/what-does-confidence-and-supply-mean
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29876154
Too much detail can sometimes be used to confuse, but in general I think more information is a good thing.
The figures, though, are surely wrong? I thought that welfare spending was only greater than the Health budget if the state pension was included as part of welfare - so why is the state pension listed separately?
It looks like the information has been presented in a way designed to fit a preconceived opinion, rather than to present unbiased information. Lumping together in-work and out-of-work benefits in the same total is massively misleading.
Tax credits are a good thing which help families. Encouraging those who are unemployed to provide the structure of employment into their lives is a good thing. Making work pay is a good thing. How much of this good thing can we actually afford? That is the real question.
Which means the opposition party will agree to support the Government on Finance Bills and any vote of confidence in order that some business can proceed in parliament.
Bad translation by UK media. @DerSPIEGEL said Merkel thinks #Brexit "möglich" = possible, i.e. she fears it
“Thieves entered an outbuilding between 6.30pm on Tuesday October 28 and 7am on Wednesday October 29 and took items including a green Polaris Ranger off-road vehicle, and the occupant’s brown and white Springer Spaniel dog.
It is believed that a horse box vehicle was seen in the area at around 3am on Wednesday, October 29 which is suspected of being used to convey the Polaris Ranger during the theft.”
Is this a question of the dog that didn’t bark?
In none of the photos or reports does it show or say there were coinS involved. If only one coin was given it is certainly more lilkely to be 2p or £2 unless Ed has a stash of 60p coins no one else has.
The furore, if we can elevate it to that, over beggargate strikes me as entirely manufactured. I have heard no-one even mention it outside this fair website.
It doesn't take magic to stop Eastern European immigration though, just a sensible immigration policy rather than the free for all we have now
Many people try to pain t UKIP as extreme, but when it comes to immigration, the extrems are the BNP who want none, and the pro EU parties who want no restrictions. UKIP are the sensible middle way
I'm sure that whatever nonsense has gone on around Ed Miliband now will not be so important, but... Does anyone remember whether there were any remotely similar stories about Blair leading up to 1997? I know Cameron had the whole cycling thing with the chauffeur following behind in the car.
It would sit well too with one of my own favorites. All tax returns should be open to view by anybody and everybody. This would dispose of a lot of myth, and cut evasion dramatically overnight.