Can you remind us which idiots changed the GP's out of hours care?
'The NHS is conducting a review of out-of-hours care which may lead to GPs again taking responsibility for looking after patients outside normal working hours.
Controversial changes to GPs’ contracts made under Labour in 2004 allowed them to opt out of treating patients outside normal office hours. The review could see that policy reversed.'
The GP doctors contract was changed so that they did not have to work unsocial hours and were paid more money.
The reason given was that there was a shortage of GPs, especially in run down areas, and it was hard to recruit.
This is probably the consequence of women now making up the majority of doctors newly qualifying. I suggest that women doctors are even less prepared than men to work unsocial hours and make home visits in run down areas.
GP's could opt out of doing their own out of hours care long before that (1990) and it was largely due to early retirement rates among older male doctors.
And given that the vast bulk of out of hours care is done by GP's the rest of your argument is irrelevant.
The changing compostion of the workforce absolutely leads to changes in working practices.
As a parallel, the US vet market is undergoing dramatic change because women now make up a majority of new qualified practioners. In particular, as a whole they have less interest in running their own practices, but would prefer to work for a corporate (e.g. Wal-Mart or Kroegers, or one of the vet chains) - they get a salary and regular hours vs. the equity ownership/upside but more work and risk.
Regarding the withdrawal of free bus passes for rich OAPs, isn't the only "saving" the money generated by these OAPs then paying for public transport instead? If they never used it anyway how would any money be saved?
ie hypothetically, the Queen might as well have a free bus pass as she is a million to use it anyway
Apologies if I have overlooked something or misunderstood.
IIRC, the 'free bus pass' is paid directly to the bus companies, so effectively it is a subsidy. Not sure how they will go through and identify which companies will receive reduced subsidies as a result of this policy change
Since the union is between England/Wales/NI and Scotland, why is the referendum about the union not being held in England/Wales/NI as well as Scotland.
In my view there would an overwhelming vote for Scottish independence amongst the wider electorate.
Only Scotland is asking to leave. It is not a referendum about kicking the Scots out of the UK.
Breaking: George Osborne writes 2 @Ed_Miliband about Labour Party advising John Mills on how to avoid tax. Will Labour pass tax due to HMRC?
Fraser Nelson @frasernelson 2m If only Ed Miliband was this angry about worklessness when he was in a government that kept 4 MILLION on the dole at the peak of the boom.
"Since the union is between England/Wales/NI and Scotland, why is the referendum about the union not being held in England/Wales/NI as well as Scotland."
You guys have got to work out whether this referendum is about dissolving the union, or Scotland seceding from the UK. If it's the latter, then self-evidently it's nobody's business but Scotland's.
"On Topic: The chart shows historical support for Scottish independence at about 1/3, never up to 50% and on a declining trend"
It certainly isn't on a declining trend - most polls this year have shown an increase in support for independence. As for the 50% point, support for independence reached 50% in 1992 - and that was in a multi-option poll, which made it even more impressive.
Fluffy,"Only Scotland is asking to leave. It is not a referendum about kicking the Scots out of the UK."
JK, "You guys have got to work out whether this referendum is about dissolving the union, or Scotland seceding from the UK. If it's the latter, then self-evidently it's nobody's business but Scotland's."
So on that basis the USA should really be the Confederate States of America. I think the south were quite keen on the idea.
NB I'm neutral and happy to leave it to Scotland but ... .
@FlashHarry - tim has had 24 hours to rehearse this ludicrous spin-line to justify Labour's about turn, but you can see his heart really isn't in it. He sees the raft of encouraging economic news that is only likely to get better over the next 2 years, and can see the inevitable outcome in 2015.
Resistance is futile: he will be absorbed. We'll make a fop out of him yet.
"Maybe it could have been different if the SNP had not been so pig-headed, evasive and petulant when people asked perfectly reasonable and serious questions about the currency, the EU and NATO."
You're really going to have to learn the difference between the SNP failing to provide answers and you not liking the answers, Richard. They've spent God knows how long explaining the position on those topics over recent months. Where is the ambiguity on the NATO policy, for example? We stay in NATO unless it's impossible to do that without getting rid of Trident, in which case we leave NATO and apply for Partnership for Peace.
Regarding the withdrawal of free bus passes for rich OAPs, isn't the only "saving" the money generated by these OAPs then paying for public transport instead? If they never used it anyway how would any money be saved?
ie hypothetically, the Queen might as well have a free bus pass as she is a million to use it anyway
Apologies if I have overlooked something or misunderstood.
IIRC, the 'free bus pass' is paid directly to the bus companies, so effectively it is a subsidy. Not sure how they will go through and identify which companies will receive reduced subsidies as a result of this policy change
@FlashHarry - tim has had 24 hours to rehearse this ludicrous spin-line to justify Labour's about turn, but you can see his heart really isn't in it. He sees the raft of encouraging economic news that is only likely to get better over the next 2 years, and can see the inevitable outcome in 2015.
Resistance is futile: he will be absorbed. We'll make a fop out of him yet.
Even Owen Jones is bigging up the conversion to Osbornism on twitter.
"Liam Byrne's Today interview confirmed it: the welfare state as we know it is dead. With Labour's decision to reverse their earlier opposition to the removal of child benefit for highest earners, following on from Ed Balls' announcement that the wealthiest pensioners would lose their winter fuel allowance, we can now start digging the grave for universalism."
"But one party who won't be asking it are Ukip, who remain committed to the principle of universality. "
All he had to do was avoid alienating left-wing Lib Dem switchers in Con-Lab marginals and they would have won the next election. Instead, he's defining themselves by Tory policy and the stories of their right-wing press cronies.
It is impossible for Labour to win the next election on the right. It was the correct strategy in 1997, it is the wrong strategy in 2015.
@JamesKelly - It's not me you need to persuade. In any case, you've chosen the least bad of the three examples. The currency incompetence was just extraordinary, and the EU incompetence not far behind. The SNP really couldn't have done a better job of sowing doubt in voters' minds if they'd set out to do so.
I expect there will be a replay on cross-border pensions, allowing the unionist side to scare people into thinking they'll lose their pensions if they vote Yes.
That's certainly true. You could hardly be less typical of the people who will actually be making this decision.
Do you want to know what the real scare story that will decide this referendum is? Ongoing Tory rule from London if we vote No. The difference is that scare story is real.
All he had to do was avoid alienating left-wing Lib Dem switchers in Con-Lab marginals and they would have won the next election. Instead, he's defining themselves by Tory policy and the stories of their right-wing press cronies.
It is impossible for Labour to win the next election on the right. It was the correct strategy in 1997, it is the wrong strategy in 2015.
EdM stays true to his father's sincere Marxism ;
" Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. "
That's certainly true. You could hardly be less typical of the people who will actually be making this decision.
Do you want to know what the real scare story that will decide this referendum is? Ongoing Tory rule from London if we vote No. The difference is that scare story is real.
There were 410,000 voters in Scotland who would be quite happy with Tory rule from London as they know they are unlikely to get Tory rule from Holyrood
All he had to do was avoid alienating left-wing Lib Dem switchers in Con-Lab marginals and they would have won the next election. Instead, he's defining themselves by Tory policy and the stories of their right-wing press cronies.
It is impossible for Labour to win the next election on the right. It was the correct strategy in 1997, it is the wrong strategy in 2015.
It will be interesting to see where the 2010 Lib Dems go now. If I recall correctly, the proportion switching to Labour had been in gentle decline in recent opinion polls. You would expect that the number saying Don't Know would increase.
"There were 410,000 voters in Scotland who would be quite happy with Tory rule from London as they know they are unlikely to get Tory rule from Holyrood"
So you thought fourth place for the Tories was quite good, Charles?
Fluffy,"Only Scotland is asking to leave. It is not a referendum about kicking the Scots out of the UK."
So on that basis the USA should really be the Confederate States of America. I think the south were quite keen on the idea.
Despite her politics I see no reason why The Confederacy should not have been allowed to exist. It would have been a lot easier for the Mexicanos to [re-] colonise. Who knows, maybe the Canucks could have reclaimed New England as a result...?
I flicked on the speech briefly, but it was boring and I had other stuff to do so I turned it off.
The Lib Dems and UKIP may see some improvements after this. A Lib Dem problem is that lost voters can now turn to UKIP instead of returning to the yellows.
"There were 410,000 voters in Scotland who would be quite happy with Tory rule from London as they know they are unlikely to get Tory rule from Holyrood"
So you thought fourth place for the Tories was quite good, Charles?
The opinions of 410,000 people don't matter, James?
"There were 410,000 voters in Scotland who would be quite happy with Tory rule from London as they know they are unlikely to get Tory rule from Holyrood"
So you thought fourth place for the Tories was quite good, Charles?
No, I am saying that more than 400,000 votes shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant. Don't forget the SNP only got about 80,000 more.
I was under the impression you were some variety of North American (apologies, if I'm incorrect), but I'm sure you remember that little incident between 1861 and 1865 better than I do. Jefferson Davis was the Braveheart of his day?
Did you approve of the North's opposition? Just curious.
It's only a u-turn if you think "Red" has switched from splurging unlimited welfare on everyone, to fully endorsing Osborne's assault on social security. Both of which are Tory caricatures that bear little resemblance to Labour's actual positions.
What's actually happened is Miliband has fleshed out a position he's consistently held. It's the dreaded "predistribution" idea, without the baffling wonkspeak.
Whether it's sensible or not is another matter. If it comes across as a welfare crackdown, Labour could have made an error, for reasons Oliver states below.
If, on the other hand, it comes across as fresh thinking for social security in an era of austerity and an alternative to the bleak and blunt Tory approach, it could help secure their victory. We'll see.
@FlashHarry - tim has had 24 hours to rehearse this ludicrous spin-line to justify Labour's about turn, but you can see his heart really isn't in it. He sees the raft of encouraging economic news that is only likely to get better over the next 2 years, and can see the inevitable outcome in 2015.
Resistance is futile: he will be absorbed. We'll make a fop out of him yet.
You're a benefit junky John, addicted to paying Buy To let landlords increased rents from the taxpayer, addicted to the taxpayer subsidising their mortgages, addicted to paying Margaret Thatcher a winter fuel allowance while she lived in the Ritz.
The PB Tories need to check in at the Priory to treat their benefit addiction.
And your childcare policy is now reduced to provide ing Dave and Sam with a subsidised nanny. Oh dear, is that what you went into politics for, to subsidise wealthy subsidy junkies?
New angry tim is scary - what u-turning event happened this week to make him so cross ?
Also - what will we call Francois Hollande when he changes tack like rEd ?
"So what’s to blame? The aspect of the Swedish social model that the government has not dared to touch: strong employment protection. By law, the last person to be hired must be the first person to be sacked. And if you employ someone longer than six months, the contract is automatically made permanent. A system intended to protect the workers has condemned the young to a succession of short-term contracts.
Sweden’s high de facto minimum wage — around 70 per cent of the average wage — renders unemployed those whose skills are worth less than that. Sweden has the fewest low-wage, entry-level jobs in Europe. Just 2.5 per cent of Swedish jobs are on this level, compared to a European average of 17 per cent."
I was under the impression you were some variety of North American (apologies, if I'm incorrect), but I'm sure you remember that little incident between 1861 and 1865 better than I do. Jefferson Davis was the Braveheart of his day?
Did you approve of the North's opposition? Just curious."
I have dual nationality but I've always lived in Scotland. I think people are guilty of muddled thinking on the American Civil War - opposition to slavery and racism is not identical to dismissing a people's right to self-determination, even though Lincoln embodied both.
"No, I am saying that more than 400,000 votes shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant"
I trust you voted against FPTP, then. 400,000 votes proved to be very close to irrelevant for the Scottish Tories.
It resulted in few representatives in Parliament, which is fine.
I would never even consider dismissing the views of political opponents as irrelevant. They may be (usually are) wrong, but every citizen has a right to be listened to.
It's only a u-turn if you think "Red" has switched from splurging unlimited welfare on everyone, to fully endorsing Osborne's assault on social security. Both of which are Tory caricatures that bear little resemblance to Labour's actual positions.
What's actually happened is Miliband has fleshed out a position he's consistently held. It's the dreaded "predistribution" idea, without the baffling wonkspeak.
Whether it's sensible or not is another matter. If it comes across as a welfare crackdown, Labour could have made an error, for reasons Oliver states below.
If, on the other hand, it comes across as fresh thinking for social security in an era of austerity and an alternative to the bleak and blunt Tory approach, it could help secure their victory. We'll see.
Carl - there are a lot of quotes out there of the two Ed's against cutting CB for the wealthiest.
On topic, the pro-independence side are certainly making their case better than the Unionists.
Whereas independence campaigners focus on the vital philosophical, existential arguments, Unionists too often focus on petty trivialities, will the queen still be on bank notes eh eh?, get out of THAT one Nats.
That said, I expect a fairly narrow vote in favour of staying in the Union ultimately.
@FlashHarry - tim has had 24 hours to rehearse this ludicrous spin-line to justify Labour's about turn, but you can see his heart really isn't in it. He sees the raft of encouraging economic news that is only likely to get better over the next 2 years, and can see the inevitable outcome in 2015.
Resistance is futile: he will be absorbed. We'll make a fop out of him yet.
You're a benefit junky John, addicted to paying Buy To let landlords increased rents from the taxpayer, addicted to the taxpayer subsidising their mortgages, addicted to paying Margaret Thatcher a winter fuel allowance while she lived in the Ritz.
The PB Tories need to check in at the Priory to treat their benefit addiction.
And your childcare policy is now reduced to provide ing Dave and Sam with a subsidised nanny. Oh dear, is that what you went into politics for, to subsidise wealthy subsidy junkies?
You're such a card, braveheart, if you add creme-egg junkie to that list of loveliness, I could not tell a lie.
The pbTories will never resile from our sacred mission: to elicit cash infusion from your good self.
And I see loadsamoney on the near horizon to satiate those manifold addictions. Roll on 2015!
New angry tim is scary - what u-turning event happened this week to make him so cross ?
If ever there was evidence that Wee-Timmy was a party-shill then today's postings prove it. Banished, with low-viz, no-entry avatar, the "Lonely One" has been typing-away, like any troupe of monkies would, trying to be legiable to the world.
Every message has been passed into the Labour Message-Queue; checked for signs of eligability, and prepared for posting. As soon as PBModerator reopened the gates a simple, single-threaded, application has been unleashed by the NEC allowing us to wallow in yesterday's reflections....
On topic, the pro-independence side are certainly making their case better than the Unionists.
Whereas independence campaigners focus on the vital philosophical, existential arguments, Unionists too often focus on petty trivialities, will the queen still be on bank notes eh eh?, get out of THAT one Nats.
That said, I expect a fairly narrow vote in favour of staying in the Union ultimately.
"Their chosen representatives had the right to speak and vote in Parliament, so they were listened to...Being listened to is not synonomous with getting your own way"
In other words the Tories were listening to Scotland by ignoring Scotland's views. Thanks for clearing that up, Charles.
In that case, you can rest assured that I most certainly "listen" to the small minority of Scots who vote Tory.
10 posts already tim and none on welfare u turns ?
There s a speech later if you need to catch up on the new positions to take.
I'd expect a few mor u turns yet. Labour is going to fight the next election on cutting welfare which is out of control due to high rents and low pay. Living wage and housebuilding policies will have huge public support, only people like you don't understand why Osborne is spending more on welfare.
Keep it up tim, spinning the farcical meme that benefits are splurged on rent, rather than cheap fags and booze.
I see REd is green lighting any future cuts that the Coalition wish to make.
How many Labour supporters regret that the Unions chose the wrong Miliband now?
On topic, the pro-independence side are certainly making their case better than the Unionists.
Whereas independence campaigners focus on the vital philosophical, existential arguments, Unionists too often focus on petty trivialities, will the queen still be on bank notes eh eh?, get out of THAT one Nats.
That said, I expect a fairly narrow vote in favour of staying in the Union ultimately.
I was under the impression you were some variety of North American (apologies, if I'm incorrect), but I'm sure you remember that little incident between 1861 and 1865 better than I do. Jefferson Davis was the Braveheart of his day?
Did you approve of the North's opposition? Just curious."
I have dual nationality but I've always lived in Scotland. I think people are guilty of muddled thinking on the American Civil War - opposition to slavery and racism is not identical to dismissing a people's right to self-determination, even though Lincoln embodied both.
Hang on a minute. Places like South Carolina and Mississippi were majority black and unionist, yet they weren't listened to at all. And the Confederacy was plenty happy to try to conquer people that didn't want to be part of their separatist state, such as West Virginia and East Tennessee.
"According to the graph, isn't it true that the Yes campaign has never attracted more than 50% support (though it may have touched 50% in c.1998)?"
How often does any political party attract more than 50% support? If pollsters persist in including likely abstainers in the calculation, then neither side actually needs more than 50% to win.
Ed Miliband has not morphed into Tony Blair. We will not see him suddenly calling for a land invasion of Syria to neutralise Assad’s chemical weapons, or embracing post office privatisation – more’s the pity.
"Since the union is between England/Wales/NI and Scotland, why is the referendum about the union not being held in England/Wales/NI as well as Scotland."
You guys have got to work out whether this referendum is about dissolving the union, or Scotland seceding from the UK. If it's the latter, then self-evidently it's nobody's business but Scotland's.
Completely fair. Any devolution settlement within the union should be voted on by the whole union, but a secession referendum should only be voted on by those seceding.
"Their chosen representatives had the right to speak and vote in Parliament, so they were listened to...Being listened to is not synonomous with getting your own way" In other words the Tories were listening to Scotland by ignoring Scotland's views. Thanks for clearing that up, Charles.
So there is no point ever electing an Opposition MP because he, by definition, is in opposition?
Fixing that is one of the plus points of dictatorship, I suppose.
"Their chosen representatives had the right to speak and vote in Parliament, so they were listened to...Being listened to is not synonomous with getting your own way"
In other words the Tories were listening to Scotland by ignoring Scotland's views. Thanks for clearing that up, Charles.
In that case, you can rest assured that I most certainly "listen" to the small minority of Scots who vote Tory.
No, you are misrepresenting what I said.
The Scottish voters chose a group of individuals to represent them in Parliament.
Those individuals had the opportunity to participate in debates, committee meetings and to vote on various measures put to the House.
That constitutes "being listened to".
It has nothing to do with whether they were able to convince a majority of their fellow representatives from other parts of the country about a specific course of action.
"Labour's arrangement with Mr Mills smacked of just such a technically but morally dubious tax dodge. Mr Mills in his candid interview makes completely clear that Labour knew and approved of his tax arrangements in advance.
A Labour Party spokesman nevertheless asserts that "John Mills's tax affairs are a matter for him". This statement, which reeks of arrogance and double standards, makes no sense. John Mills's tax affairs are very much a matter for the Labour Party.
We now await an explanation of why there is one rule for Eric Schmidt's Google and another rule for Ed Miliband's Labour."
"So there is no point ever electing an Opposition MP because he, by definition, is in opposition?"
In Scotland between 1979 and 1997, there was no point in voting anything other than Tory it seemed. 100% of Scots could have voted against them, and we'd still have woken up the next day without a Scottish Parliament, and with Malcolm Rifkind or Ian Lang as our colonial governor.
On topic, the pro-independence side are certainly making their case better than the Unionists.
Whereas independence campaigners focus on the vital philosophical, existential arguments, Unionists too often focus on petty trivialities, will the queen still be on bank notes eh eh?, get out of THAT one Nats.
That said, I expect a fairly narrow vote in favour of staying in the Union ultimately.
Given that you fought the last election prioritising the inheritance from wind farm subsidies and CAP payments that the Cameron's could receive it's hardly a surprise now that you're going into battle for Sir Reginald Sheffield's bus pass and Lady Astor's winter fuel payment.
Comfort yourself with the thought of how much tax she's generated selling tasteful elephant lamps to a grateful nation.
It's entrepreneurs like her that enable the State to pay whining doctors more, for doing less.
Osborne .... is terminally addicted to increasing housing benefit.
Tim you have made this point many many times. So in my early lunch break I wondered what are the facts? In real terms pricing (2013/14) the DWP stats March 2013 are as follows. http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/index.php?page=expenditure (click on Spread sheet Tables 1948 to.. and Table 1b).
In the last Labour 5 year parliament 2004/5 to 2009/10 spending on Housing benefit went up by £5.6bn a 34% increase (5 yrs) at an average of £1.1bn increase every year.
So far in the first 3 years of the coalition spending has risen by £2.6bn since 2009/10 a 14% (3yrs) increase at an average of £0.86bn increase every year.
The Forecasts approved by the OBR are that by the next GE spending will have risen by 2.2bn since 2009/10 a 10% increase (5yrs) at an average of £0.4bn increase every year.
So where is the evidence that Osborne is "terminally addicted to increasing housing benefit."?
The evidence indicates that the Coalition has slowed the rate of growth and has approved forecasts that show a slight decline in real terms over the next two years.
"Those individuals had the opportunity to participate in debates, committee meetings and to vote on various measures put to the House.
That constitutes "being listened to"."
No it doesn't. If 74% of a country votes for self-government in 1992, and self-government is denied, then the 74% were not listened to. They were ignored. In fact, let's call a spade a spade - your government, Charles, treated the people of this country with contempt.
In an interview with Scott Timberg for Salon, Lanier gives a potent example: Kodak used to have "140,000 really good middle-class employees. Instagram has 13 employees, period." He describes a winner-takes-all world, with a tiny number of successful people and everyone else living on hope. "There is not a middle-class hump. It's an all-or-nothing society."
Guardian journalist doesn't understand economics shock. If each company produces the same output with fewer employees, that just means that there will be more companies and more output, you silly bint.
She then goes on to argue that, because some people now work for free for a few years to improve their future earnings, that means everyone one day will work for free. Why on Earth would anyone - let alone everyone - work for free if they didn't get any future earnings for the experience?
Seriously, how do you get a job at a national newspaper without the slightest amount of logic? There are a few good journalists, but most of them seem to be idiots barely capable of rational thought.
"So there is no point ever electing an Opposition MP because he, by definition, is in opposition?"
In Scotland between 1979 and 1997, there was no point in voting anything other than Tory it seemed. 100% of Scots could have voted against them, and we'd still have woken up the next day without a Scottish Parliament, and with Malcolm Rifkind or Ian Lang as our colonial governor.
That democracy thing is a bummer isn't it? Minorities / oppositions / regions always get frustrated because they can't control the democractic majority. If this is indeed intolerable to Scots you should get out.
But what should centre right voters in Scotland then do? Maybe Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale should declare independence from their lefty Scottish masters who they didn't vote for.
"Those individuals had the opportunity to participate in debates, committee meetings and to vote on various measures put to the House.
That constitutes "being listened to"."
No it doesn't. If 74% of a country votes for self-government in 1992, and self-government is denied, then the 74% were not listened to. They were ignored. In fact, let's call a spade a spade - your government, Charles, treated the people of this country with contempt.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say 74% voted for self-government (I don't recall there being a referendum).
If you mean that 74% of Scottish votes were cast for parties other than the Tories, then I think you should be fairly happy that 85% of Scottish MPs after the election were non-Tories
"I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say 74% voted for self-government (I don't recall there being a referendum)."
74% voted for parties with a Scottish parliament in their manifesto. 26% did not.
Do you know why you can't recall a referendum, Charles? Because your government refused to hold one. No, they just carried on governing Scotland as if their lack of democratic legitimacy didn't matter.
So there is no point ever electing an Opposition MP because he, by definition, is in opposition? Fixing that is one of the plus points of dictatorship, I suppose.
The only way to fix your angst is to have a one-party state where everyone is on the government benches.
"Were the vast majority of southerners who voted against Labour listened to between 1997 and 2010?"
Oh yes.
You're a complete hypocrite. South of the Severn-Wash line, the Tories had a huge majority, yet southerners had to put up with Labour governments. Every argument you make about Scots during Thatcher can be put right back to you about Southerners under Blair. Or, indeed, about Bavaria under Schroeder or New England under Bush or a hundred other examples in democracies around the world. You just have an acute sense of Scottish grievance, and can't accept that sometimes areas of a state get governments of the opposite stripe to the way they vote.
"I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say 74% voted for self-government (I don't recall there being a referendum)."
74% voted for parties with a Scottish parliament in their manifesto. 26% did not.
Do you know why you can't recall a referendum, Charles? Because your government refused to hold one. No, they just carried on governing Scotland as if their lack of democratic legitimacy didn't matter.
That's the rub about manifestos. 74% voted for parties that supported a Scottish Parliament. That's not exactly the same as saying 74% supported a Scottish Parliament - it could be more, or it could be less. Voting for a party is about balancing their various policies and selecting who you think is the best overall.
It so happens that I disagree with the Tory Party's policy on Scotland. If you want to be independent, then good luck to you. It'll be a shame, but we'll survive without you. However, overall I think that the Tory's party's policy programme offers the best for the country as a whole, so I support them.
Think about it like chosing a prix fixee menu, rather than a la carte.
"You're a complete hypocrite. South of the Severn-Wash line, the Tories had a huge majority, yet southerners had to put up with Labour governments. Every argument you make about Scots during Thatcher can be put right back to you about Southerners under Blair. Or, indeed, about Bavaria under Schroeder or New England under Bush or a hundred other examples in democracies around the world. You just have an acute sense of Scottish grievance, and can't accept that sometimes areas of a state get governments of the opposite stripe to the way they vote."
You know what, Socrates? That would be a truly devastating argument if a) the people of southern England had been voting for self-government in the way that Scotland did between 1979 and 1997, and b) if you hadn't been responding to me merely making the point that the Labour government listened to the south.
In fact, I'd put it rather more strongly than that - they were utterly obsessed with the south.
Daily Politics leading on the Labour donation - Jackie Smith making heavy weather of it - Neil also points out that as the company is private what dividends it declares will not be in the public domain.....'we will pay tax on these dividends - of course, you'd go to prison if you didn't.....
....basically its not alright for Google to follow the letter of the law to minimise tax, but its perfectly fine for Labour donors.....
Tim, I have used the March 2013 figures which presumably incorporate all the other figures you quote or are you saying that these March 2013 figures have omitted figures you quote from 2012? I somehow doubt that.
The facts clearly are that the rate of increase in housing benefit has already slowed under the Coalition and the OBR approved forecasts now show a nett decline in real terms. Stating otherwise would be lying.
"That's the rub about manifestos. 74% voted for parties that supported a Scottish Parliament. That's not exactly the same as saying 74% supported a Scottish Parliament - it could be more, or it could be less. Voting for a party is about balancing their various policies and selecting who you think is the best overall."
Hmmm. So what you're saying is that the Tory government should have put that to the test by holding a referendum. Pity they went down the colonial route instead.
"Were the vast majority of southerners who voted against Labour listened to between 1997 and 2010?"
Oh yes.
You're a complete hypocrite. South of the Severn-Wash line, the Tories had a huge majority, yet southerners had to put up with Labour governments. Every argument you make about Scots during Thatcher can be put right back to you about Southerners under Blair. Or, indeed, about Bavaria under Schroeder or New England under Bush or a hundred other examples in democracies around the world. You just have an acute sense of Scottish grievance, and can't accept that sometimes areas of a state get governments of the opposite stripe to the way they vote.
I think we should be demanding freedom for all those poor glaswegian Labourites toiling under the yolk of Salmond's Holyrood. It's slavery I tell you, they didn't vote for him.
Comments
As a parallel, the US vet market is undergoing dramatic change because women now make up a majority of new qualified practioners. In particular, as a whole they have less interest in running their own practices, but would prefer to work for a corporate (e.g. Wal-Mart or Kroegers, or one of the vet chains) - they get a salary and regular hours vs. the equity ownership/upside but more work and risk.
Anyone speak wonkanese ?
An 18-year old student from Sciences Po, #Paris has been left brain dead following attack by right-wing extremists http://bit.ly/13ceht2
He wants power devolved to local people to be led from the top of government.
'The GP doctors contract was changed so that they did not have to work unsocial hours and were paid more money.'
Typical Labour stupidity,pay people more for doing less.
Breaking: George Osborne writes 2 @Ed_Miliband about Labour Party advising John Mills on how to avoid tax. Will Labour pass tax due to HMRC?
Fraser Nelson @frasernelson 2m
If only Ed Miliband was this angry about worklessness when he was in a government that kept 4 MILLION on the dole at the peak of the boom.
You guys have got to work out whether this referendum is about dissolving the union, or Scotland seceding from the UK. If it's the latter, then self-evidently it's nobody's business but Scotland's.
The next election will be fought on houses that won't be ready until 2022 ?
That is very likely.
Oh BBC get bored.
Ed Muddledband can't build houses faster than he encourages more people into the country to fill them.
"On Topic: The chart shows historical support for Scottish independence at about 1/3, never up to 50% and on a declining trend"
It certainly isn't on a declining trend - most polls this year have shown an increase in support for independence. As for the 50% point, support for independence reached 50% in 1992 - and that was in a multi-option poll, which made it even more impressive.
Fluffy,"Only Scotland is asking to leave. It is not a referendum about kicking the Scots out of the UK."
JK, "You guys have got to work out whether this referendum is about dissolving the union, or Scotland seceding from the UK. If it's the latter, then self-evidently it's nobody's business but Scotland's."
So on that basis the USA should really be the Confederate States of America. I think the south were quite keen on the idea.
NB I'm neutral and happy to leave it to Scotland but ...
.
'Ed Miliband says that the high cost of housing benefit is “the cost of our failure over decades to not building enough homes”.
Is Ed going to apologize for the lowest social house building program since world war 2 during the period 1997 - 2010?
Resistance is futile: he will be absorbed. We'll make a fop out of him yet.
You're really going to have to learn the difference between the SNP failing to provide answers and you not liking the answers, Richard. They've spent God knows how long explaining the position on those topics over recent months. Where is the ambiguity on the NATO policy, for example? We stay in NATO unless it's impossible to do that without getting rid of Trident, in which case we leave NATO and apply for Partnership for Peace.
tim, Polly and Peter Hain are alone on a raft.
Ed finally acknowledges that Labour's social welfare model has been tested to destruction and doesn't work.
So what next ?
Explain?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100220520/rip-universalism-now-only-ukip-supports-it/
"Liam Byrne's Today interview confirmed it: the welfare state as we know it is dead. With Labour's decision to reverse their earlier opposition to the removal of child benefit for highest earners, following on from Ed Balls' announcement that the wealthiest pensioners would lose their winter fuel allowance, we can now start digging the grave for universalism."
"But one party who won't be asking it are Ukip, who remain committed to the principle of universality. "
All he had to do was avoid alienating left-wing Lib Dem switchers in Con-Lab marginals and they would have won the next election. Instead, he's defining themselves by Tory policy and the stories of their right-wing press cronies.
It is impossible for Labour to win the next election on the right. It was the correct strategy in 1997, it is the wrong strategy in 2015.
I expect there will be a replay on cross-border pensions, allowing the unionist side to scare people into thinking they'll lose their pensions if they vote Yes.
http://order-order.com/2013/06/06/the-9-most-terrifying-words-in-miliband-speech/
That's certainly true. You could hardly be less typical of the people who will actually be making this decision.
Do you want to know what the real scare story that will decide this referendum is? Ongoing Tory rule from London if we vote No. The difference is that scare story is real.
" Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. "
So you thought fourth place for the Tories was quite good, Charles?
The Lib Dems and UKIP may see some improvements after this. A Lib Dem problem is that lost voters can now turn to UKIP instead of returning to the yellows.
https://twitter.com/KAlmsivi/status/342588025919922177/photo/1
My favourite - "Labour is campaigning to fix the Haudagain Roundabout. Do you agree?
Options-
Yes, and do it now!
No, not before 2018"
I do hope they identify the section of the electorate opposed to roundabout repairs and campaign accordingly.
I was under the impression you were some variety of North American (apologies, if I'm incorrect), but I'm sure you remember that little incident between 1861 and 1865 better than I do. Jefferson Davis was the Braveheart of his day?
Did you approve of the North's opposition? Just curious.
I trust you voted against FPTP, then. 400,000 votes proved to be very close to irrelevant for the Scottish Tories.
Groan.
It's only a u-turn if you think "Red" has switched from splurging unlimited welfare on everyone, to fully endorsing Osborne's assault on social security. Both of which are Tory caricatures that bear little resemblance to Labour's actual positions.
What's actually happened is Miliband has fleshed out a position he's consistently held. It's the dreaded "predistribution" idea, without the baffling wonkspeak.
Whether it's sensible or not is another matter. If it comes across as a welfare crackdown, Labour could have made an error, for reasons Oliver states below.
If, on the other hand, it comes across as fresh thinking for social security in an era of austerity and an alternative to the bleak and blunt Tory approach, it could help secure their victory. We'll see.
Also - what will we call Francois Hollande when he changes tack like rEd ?
Philipe Felope.
I'm here all week.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8927011/why-sweden-has-riots/
"So what’s to blame? The aspect of the Swedish social model that the government has not dared to touch: strong employment protection. By law, the last person to be hired must be the first person to be sacked. And if you employ someone longer than six months, the contract is automatically made permanent. A system intended to protect the workers has condemned the young to a succession of short-term contracts.
Sweden’s high de facto minimum wage — around 70 per cent of the average wage — renders unemployed those whose skills are worth less than that. Sweden has the fewest low-wage, entry-level jobs in Europe. Just 2.5 per cent of Swedish jobs are on this level, compared to a European average of 17 per cent."
I was under the impression you were some variety of North American (apologies, if I'm incorrect), but I'm sure you remember that little incident between 1861 and 1865 better than I do. Jefferson Davis was the Braveheart of his day?
Did you approve of the North's opposition? Just curious."
I have dual nationality but I've always lived in Scotland. I think people are guilty of muddled thinking on the American Civil War - opposition to slavery and racism is not identical to dismissing a people's right to self-determination, even though Lincoln embodied both.
I would never even consider dismissing the views of political opponents as irrelevant. They may be (usually are) wrong, but every citizen has a right to be listened to.
If it quacks and waddles like a u-turn....
Were the vast majority of Scots who voted against the Tories listened to between 1979 and 1997?
Whereas independence campaigners focus on the vital philosophical, existential arguments, Unionists too often focus on petty trivialities, will the queen still be on bank notes eh eh?, get out of THAT one Nats.
That said, I expect a fairly narrow vote in favour of staying in the Union ultimately.
The pbTories will never resile from our sacred mission: to elicit cash infusion from your good self.
And I see loadsamoney on the near horizon to satiate those manifold addictions. Roll on 2015!
Every message has been passed into the Labour Message-Queue; checked for signs of eligability, and prepared for posting. As soon as PBModerator reopened the gates a simple, single-threaded, application has been unleashed by the NEC allowing us to wallow in yesterday's reflections....
As to whether those representatives bothered to listen to their constituents, I have no idea.
Being listened to is not synonomous with getting your own way
JK,
Thanks for the reply.
I'm happy for Scotland to vote on its own future. If I had a vote, I'd abstain anyway.
Ed Miliband: Labour moderniser
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100220554/ed-miliband-labour-moderniser/
The Queen isn't on Scottish bank notes.
In other words the Tories were listening to Scotland by ignoring Scotland's views. Thanks for clearing that up, Charles.
In that case, you can rest assured that I most certainly "listen" to the small minority of Scots who vote Tory.
Tim Shipman tweets: "Miliband says Labour will pay tax on Mills donations. But that isn't the point. Mills has avoided tax."
I see REd is green lighting any future cuts that the Coalition wish to make.
How many Labour supporters regret that the Unions chose the wrong Miliband now?
How often does any political party attract more than 50% support? If pollsters persist in including likely abstainers in the calculation, then neither side actually needs more than 50% to win.
Ed Miliband has not morphed into Tony Blair. We will not see him suddenly calling for a land invasion of Syria to neutralise Assad’s chemical weapons, or embracing post office privatisation – more’s the pity.
Nurse!
Fine. They should have been. Self-determination means what it says.
Oh yes.
"The concept of universality that has underpinned the welfare state for over 60 years has gone for good.
So too has Labour’s reliance on ever increasing public expenditure to achieve its progressive goals.
And there is now a consensus that the post-war welfare settlement is no longer sustainable."
Fixing that is one of the plus points of dictatorship, I suppose.
The Scottish voters chose a group of individuals to represent them in Parliament.
Those individuals had the opportunity to participate in debates, committee meetings and to vote on various measures put to the House.
That constitutes "being listened to".
It has nothing to do with whether they were able to convince a majority of their fellow representatives from other parts of the country about a specific course of action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdddUFFcNCk&feature=player_embedded
But dodges the question (posed) on the tax-avoidance advice they gave their donor.....
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100220550/ed-miliband-needs-to-explain-why-there-is-one-rule-for-google-and-another-rule-for-labour/
"Labour's arrangement with Mr Mills smacked of just such a technically but morally dubious tax dodge. Mr Mills in his candid interview makes completely clear that Labour knew and approved of his tax arrangements in advance.
A Labour Party spokesman nevertheless asserts that "John Mills's tax affairs are a matter for him". This statement, which reeks of arrogance and double standards, makes no sense. John Mills's tax affairs are very much a matter for the Labour Party.
We now await an explanation of why there is one rule for Eric Schmidt's Google and another rule for Ed Miliband's Labour."
In Scotland between 1979 and 1997, there was no point in voting anything other than Tory it seemed. 100% of Scots could have voted against them, and we'd still have woken up the next day without a Scottish Parliament, and with Malcolm Rifkind or Ian Lang as our colonial governor.
Ed's going to have to give the Mills money back. Do it now, spare the row and the u-turn.
It's entrepreneurs like her that enable the State to pay whining doctors more, for doing less.
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/index.php?page=expenditure (click on Spread sheet Tables 1948 to.. and Table 1b).
In the last Labour 5 year parliament 2004/5 to 2009/10 spending on Housing benefit went up by £5.6bn a 34% increase (5 yrs) at an average of £1.1bn increase every year.
So far in the first 3 years of the coalition spending has risen by £2.6bn since 2009/10 a 14% (3yrs) increase at an average of £0.86bn increase every year.
The Forecasts approved by the OBR are that by the next GE spending will have risen by 2.2bn since 2009/10 a 10% increase (5yrs) at an average of £0.4bn increase every year.
So where is the evidence that Osborne is "terminally addicted to increasing housing benefit."?
The evidence indicates that the Coalition has slowed the rate of growth and has approved forecasts that show a slight decline in real terms over the next two years.
That constitutes "being listened to"."
No it doesn't. If 74% of a country votes for self-government in 1992, and self-government is denied, then the 74% were not listened to. They were ignored. In fact, let's call a spade a spade - your government, Charles, treated the people of this country with contempt.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/05/digital-economy-work-for-free
Guardian journalist doesn't understand economics shock. If each company produces the same output with fewer employees, that just means that there will be more companies and more output, you silly bint.
She then goes on to argue that, because some people now work for free for a few years to improve their future earnings, that means everyone one day will work for free. Why on Earth would anyone - let alone everyone - work for free if they didn't get any future earnings for the experience?
Seriously, how do you get a job at a national newspaper without the slightest amount of logic? There are a few good journalists, but most of them seem to be idiots barely capable of rational thought.
Could you explain the relationship between the first sentence and the second? There doesn't appear to be one.
But what should centre right voters in Scotland then do? Maybe Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale should declare independence from their lefty Scottish masters who they didn't vote for.
If ever a post reeks of desperation, that's the one.
If you mean that 74% of Scottish votes were cast for parties other than the Tories, then I think you should be fairly happy that 85% of Scottish MPs after the election were non-Tories
Is that why we weren't allowed to have it, Patrick? To give the Scottish Tories a chance to rule without having to win a majority?
74% voted for parties with a Scottish parliament in their manifesto.
26% did not.
Do you know why you can't recall a referendum, Charles? Because your government refused to hold one. No, they just carried on governing Scotland as if their lack of democratic legitimacy didn't matter.
By next September there will have been twice as many Indy ref's than those on the EU.
And another Indy ref pencilled in for 2049
It so happens that I disagree with the Tory Party's policy on Scotland. If you want to be independent, then good luck to you. It'll be a shame, but we'll survive without you. However, overall I think that the Tory's party's policy programme offers the best for the country as a whole, so I support them.
Think about it like chosing a prix fixee menu, rather than a la carte.
You know what, Socrates? That would be a truly devastating argument if a) the people of southern England had been voting for self-government in the way that Scotland did between 1979 and 1997, and b) if you hadn't been responding to me merely making the point that the Labour government listened to the south.
In fact, I'd put it rather more strongly than that - they were utterly obsessed with the south.
....basically its not alright for Google to follow the letter of the law to minimise tax, but its perfectly fine for Labour donors.....
The facts clearly are that the rate of increase in housing benefit has already slowed under the Coalition and the OBR approved forecasts now show a nett decline in real terms. Stating otherwise would be lying.
Hmmm. So what you're saying is that the Tory government should have put that to the test by holding a referendum. Pity they went down the colonial route instead.
Apologies for my thought crime :-)