Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling Matters Podcast: What does Labour do next?

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited May 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling Matters Podcast: What does Labour do next?


Polling Matters is an independent, non partisan podcast providing expert polling news and political analysis in the aftermath of the 2015 General Election.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    First!!
  • ReestevReestev Posts: 10
    who cares
  • ReestevReestev Posts: 10
    Sorry, I've been a lurker for some time and decided to leave cover, hello all
  • ReestevReestev Posts: 10
    the "who cares" comment was for the header not Tim_B !
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Reestev said:

    the "who cares" comment was for the header not Tim_B !

    That's a relief :)

    Welcome!
  • ReestevReestev Posts: 10
    Thank you, picked a bad night to break cover I think
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited May 2015
    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited May 2015
    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories

    IMO, Labour taking a high-profile role in the EU campaign would be the death knell for them. It could lead to a Scottish-style meltdown to UKIP in their non-metropolitan heartlands. They're best off just keeping quiet during that whole thing and letting Cameron and the Tory "Europhiles" take care of it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    One of the best points is that the polling did not show any real change during the campaign. Were they simply wrong for months or was there a last minute switch to the Tories on the back of the SNP scare?

    Given their incompetence we may never know.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Danny656 No, yougov has 60%+ of Labour voters wanting to stay in the EU, the Tories are split down the middle, it is the Tories who have most to lose to UKIP now, if Labour voters did not vote UKIP with North London intelligentsia Ed as leader they will not with northern Andy, Watford Liz, or Pontefract Yvette
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    In Scotland it was Labour who were hit most by campaigning with the Tories, with Scottish Labour voters split down the middle and Scottish Tories strongly for No, and the SNP gained, on the EU it would be the Tories who are most split and UKIP waiting in the wings
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited May 2015
    HYUFD said:

    Danny656 No, yougov has 60%+ of Labour voters wanting to stay in the EU, the Tories are split down the middle, it is the Tories who have most to lose to UKIP now, if Labour voters did not vote UKIP with North London intelligentsia Ed as leader they will not with northern Andy, Watford Liz, or Pontefract Yvette

    But that 40% against staying is still enough for Labour to potentially be routed in their heartlands. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers start moving if the anti-EU campaign is based on immigration and maybe some vague economic populism ("the EU are taking all our money, there'll be more for people like you if we get out").
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    FPT:
    Guardian leading on "thousands to be plunged into poverty by benefits cut".

    Is a max £23k (tax free), the take home equivalent of a salary of £29,500 now 'poverty'?

    According to www.globalrichlist.net a £29,500 income puts you in the top 0.66% of the worlds income, and the equivalent of £15.36 an hour.

    Not many people in my town earn £15 an hour.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited May 2015
    Danny565 Rubbish, Tory voters are also more anti immigration on average than Labour, if immigration was any Labour voters main concern they will have voted UKIP in 2010 anyway, many Out Tories will have voted Tory to get the referendum, it is the Tories who have been most split by Europe for decades if Labour have any tactical sense they will exploit it as ruthlessly as Blair did in the 90s. I am no Labour supporter but any sensible Labour leader should join Cameron on the In side and of course proclaim any renegotiation on immigration, however whatever is renegotiated will be unlikely to satisfy hardline Tory sceptics
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    FPT

    "Why is a young man like you concerned about Northern Ireland? What about Vietnam? What about Rhodesia?"

    - Barbara Castle to Paul Rose, MP in 1967.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD rubbish. Scottish Labour were weak as they were an opposition parry siding with one government party (Westminster Tories) versus another government party (Holyrood SNP). After decades of SLAB's message being that they were not the Tories they were reduced to an irrelevance by the SNP.

    Any sane reading of the 2015 election shows Labour was hurt by UKIP and they clearly have a potential to lose more. The danger is they again become an irrelevance. As for this nonsense of claiming poll numbers please show a single post 2015 opinion poll giving a breakdown of what 2015 voters think. Any pre 2015 polls are moot now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    The latest yougov has Labour voters dividing 60% In 18% Out, the Tories are split 36% In 44% Out. Overall it is 44% In 36% Out
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/24/low-expectations-eu-negotiations/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited May 2015
    PT See post general election yougov poll below. The Tories are as split on the EU as Scottish Labour were on the Union, Labour is almost as pro EU as the Scottish Tories were pro UK
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    The polling is a snapshot, a very weak snapshot as we have seen this month. If you read the next question the Tory voters are the most likely to believe Cameron can renegotiate successfully. So its quite possible Cameron will be able to win around a proportion of the Conservative voters.

    Plus many parties operate successfully as broad churches. So long as Cameron allows Hannan and other sceptics to campaign for Out there's no reason to need to jump ship. Labour though are less likely to have any real outlet for Out frustrations especially over immigration. They'll also not buy into any renegotiation.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    The Conservatives being split is nothing new. A referendum to settle the matter one way or another can end the schism hopefully.

    What CHANGE do you foresee that hasn't already happened to make the party more divided?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    PT Of course they will hope Cameron can renegotiate but when, as looks likely, he comes back with a token renegotiation and starts campaigning with Labour some of 44% will be moving to the Out side and if it ends up a narrow In UKIP will be waiting for them and some may switch. 18% of Labour voters for Out is negligible, as I said any Labour voters who were greatly concerned by immigration will already have made the switch to UKIP
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    PT The worst result for the Tories is a narrow In which keeps the sceptics fire burning as in Scotland with the nats and a relatively narrow No, a big In would clearly boost Cameron, an Out would mean the sceptics had won, but a relatively narrow In is what that yougov suggests it presently would be
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2015
    notme said:

    FPT:
    Guardian leading on "thousands to be plunged into poverty by benefits cut".

    Is a max £23k (tax free), the take home equivalent of a salary of £29,500 now 'poverty'?

    According to www.globalrichlist.net a £29,500 income puts you in the top 0.66% of the worlds income, and the equivalent of £15.36 an hour.

    Not many people in my town earn £15 an hour.

    I'm earning less than £23k at the moment, so I'm living in poverty according to the Guardian. I would have to disagree with that assessment. Anyone for example who's just started setting up their own business would fall into this category.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    Labour should NOT campaign in a big way to stay IN. They can let it be known through statements and a few party only meetings that they were in favour of staying IN.

    Labour should NOT campaign alongside Cameron / Tories. There is nothing to gain for Labour.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    AndyJS said:

    notme said:

    FPT:
    Guardian leading on "thousands to be plunged into poverty by benefits cut".

    Is a max £23k (tax free), the take home equivalent of a salary of £29,500 now 'poverty'?

    According to www.globalrichlist.net a £29,500 income puts you in the top 0.66% of the worlds income, and the equivalent of £15.36 an hour.

    Not many people in my town earn £15 an hour.

    I'm earning less than £23k at the moment, so I'm living in poverty according to the Guardian. I would have to disagree with that assessment. Anyone for example who's just started setting up their own business would fall into this category.
    The thing is, no matter how great the largesse the recipient feels hard done by if any of it is reigned in. Many recipients seemed to think that their decisions should have no consequences.

    The big changes from IDS have been in aligning the world of work and the world of benefits.

    The crash seemed to impact everyone, public and private sector workers, even pensioners dependent on investment income took a hit as the collective wealth of the nation dropped. The only people completely isolated from the changes were those on welfare.

    The recession was something that happened to everyone else, except them.

    During our lives we make decisions on many things. One of the biggest decisions we make is on the size of our home. We combine what we can afford, what we need and what we would like. As a private renter or a homeowner we make this decision. We want a nice area we compromise on the size, we want a bigger size we compromise on the area.

    A social renter on housing benefit though, this notion seems to be alien. For some reason basing your housing needs on what you can afford and and need is an alien concept. A great affront to common decency.


    What is frustrating is that while the welfare system creates perverted largesse in many cases for families with the way that multiple of children create significant residual incomes which are far higher than the recipient could ever command in the work place, but to single applicants on bog standard jsa and housing benefit, it is anything but largesse.

    I would have very great difficulty surviving on the amount of money you get on JSA.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    (OT) Here is a word game you can do for yourself.
    I was bored, so I used Google Translate to translate some words.
    (You can use a normal dikshunry, if you want to).
    I translated "pompous" into German:

    POMPOUS: pompös, aufgeblasen, hochtrabend, wichtigtuerisch, schwülstig, geschwollen, hochgestochen

    Then I translated the various options given back into English:

    POMPÖS: pompous, ostentatious, pretentious, grandiose, vainglorious
    AUFGEBLASEN: inflated, pompous, bumptious, puffed-up
    HOCHTRABEND: pompous, overblown, pretentious, highfalutin, turgid, purple, rotund, inflated
    WICHTIGTUERISCH: pompous, bumptious, consequential
    SCHWÜLSTIG: bombastic, pompous, overblown, grandiloquent, fustian, grandiose, prosy
    HOCHGESTOCHEN: highbrow, highfalutin, pretentious, pompous, purple, stuck-up
    GESCHWOLLEN: swollen, puffy, turgid, thick, pompous, inflated

    Removing duplicated words from the list, this gives 23 different words when "pompous" is translated into German and back again:

    pompous, ostentatious, pretentious, grandiose, vainglorious, inflated, bumptious, puffed-up, overblown, highfalutin, turgid, purple, rotund, consequential, bombastic, grandiloquent, fustian, prosy, swollen, puffy, thick, highbrow, stuck-up.

    Why did I do this? Because I was inspired by this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJC-fMzBzVs
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    AndyJS said:

    notme said:

    FPT:
    Guardian leading on "thousands to be plunged into poverty by benefits cut".

    Is a max £23k (tax free), the take home equivalent of a salary of £29,500 now 'poverty'?

    According to www.globalrichlist.net a £29,500 income puts you in the top 0.66% of the worlds income, and the equivalent of £15.36 an hour.

    Not many people in my town earn £15 an hour.

    I'm earning less than £23k at the moment, so I'm living in poverty according to the Guardian. I would have to disagree with that assessment. Anyone for example who's just started setting up their own business would fall into this category.

    Doesn't it rather depend on where you live and the number of dependents you have? No single person is going to be getting close to £23,000 worth of welfare support a year. Almost all those affected will be families with young children - there will be some feckless parents among them and then there'll be those who are in genuine need and doing all they can to stand on their own two feet. The former will be profiled relentlessly in the Tory press, the latter will be largely ignored.

  • In the pod cast Professor John Curtice was scathing in his comments on Labour.
    "No message". "Need to win back image of competency."
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175

    AndyJS said:

    notme said:

    FPT:
    Guardian leading on "thousands to be plunged into poverty by benefits cut".

    Is a max £23k (tax free), the take home equivalent of a salary of £29,500 now 'poverty'?

    According to www.globalrichlist.net a £29,500 income puts you in the top 0.66% of the worlds income, and the equivalent of £15.36 an hour.

    Not many people in my town earn £15 an hour.

    I'm earning less than £23k at the moment, so I'm living in poverty according to the Guardian. I would have to disagree with that assessment. Anyone for example who's just started setting up their own business would fall into this category.

    Doesn't it rather depend on where you live and the number of dependents you have? No single person is going to be getting close to £23,000 worth of welfare support a year. Almost all those affected will be families with young children - there will be some feckless parents among them and then there'll be those who are in genuine need and doing all they can to stand on their own two feet. The former will be profiled relentlessly in the Tory press, the latter will be largely ignored.

    Unfair I think. There rather has not been enough emphasis on those who do work hard and who, rightly, do not want those who don't to receive more than them for doing nothing. Labour make a big mistake here - as does the Guardian. There was a post-election interview of a young black woman in Ilford. She said: 'we don't get any benefits so Labour hasnothing for us'. When annual benefit totals exceed average wages things are badly out of kilter. If you don't get this, then you need another look at your moral compass.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    What does labour do next is a good question. They have lost sight of who their target market is, Blair and Mandelson may have won 3 elections but ultimately they ruined the party. The main spokesperson right now is Harman, she is the type of bland, centrist, cliched politician that traditional labour voters recoil from. They need to decide if they want Guardian readers or Mirror readers to vote for them, there's loads more of the latter and they despise the elitists that are currently calling the shots.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    What does labour do next is a good question. They have lost sight of who their target market is, Blair and Mandelson may have won 3 elections but ultimately they ruined the party. The main spokesperson right now is Harman, she is the type of bland, centrist, cliched politician that traditional labour voters recoil from. They need to decide if they want Guardian readers or Mirror readers to vote for them, there's loads more of the latter and they despise the elitists that are currently calling the shots.

    Labour has long been an alliance between upper middle class intellectuals and working class people. Clement Attlee was a public school boy for example, but one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time.

    The class structure is changing, with far fewer people working in large industries, and Labour has been historically too centered on these and on public sector workers.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175

    What does labour do next is a good question. They have lost sight of who their target market is, Blair and Mandelson may have won 3 elections but ultimately they ruined the party. The main spokesperson right now is Harman, she is the type of bland, centrist, cliched politician that traditional labour voters recoil from. They need to decide if they want Guardian readers or Mirror readers to vote for them, there's loads more of the latter and they despise the elitists that are currently calling the shots.

    Spot on - Labour has become a captive of the London chartered who worship the Guardian as the font of all truth. They are completely adrift from small town England as a glance at the map of election results shows. Pandering to the moronic politically correct rantings of their metropolitan members will do nothing to bring those lost voters back. And in the north it will continue to help UKIP. Labour are in a very dangerous place now -and to paraphrase a voter interviews after the election 'I don't care' .
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    The Guardian piece and the Government memo that it reports are more balanced than the headline suggests: essentially it says that child poverty will increase significantly as a result of the lower cap unless the effect is that the parents obtain more or better-paid work. This is because the cap mainly hits larger families and the benefits affected are often those related to children.

    Anyone who has had much to do with people dependent on benefits knows that there's a range from people who are struggling honestly and desperately to outright scroungers, but the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons. Merely punishing them doesn't address the problem seriously. I think even people on benefits would be up for a lower cap if it was linked to more proactive help, including subsidised work experience, but with working tax credit also under pressure the impression given is that they're just seen as a group to be squeezed.

    Electorally, this has few consequences, since they are a minority who in any case tend not to vote. But as a largely stand-alone initiative it's not a decent policy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    AndyJS said:

    notme said:

    FPT:
    Guardian leading on "thousands to be plunged into poverty by benefits cut".

    Is a max £23k (tax free), the take home equivalent of a salary of £29,500 now 'poverty'?

    According to www.globalrichlist.net a £29,500 income puts you in the top 0.66% of the worlds income, and the equivalent of £15.36 an hour.

    Not many people in my town earn £15 an hour.

    I'm earning less than £23k at the moment, so I'm living in poverty according to the Guardian. I would have to disagree with that assessment. Anyone for example who's just started setting up their own business would fall into this category.

    Doesn't it rather depend on where you live and the number of dependents you have? No single person is going to be getting close to £23,000 worth of welfare support a year. Almost all those affected will be families with young children - there will be some feckless parents among them and then there'll be those who are in genuine need and doing all they can to stand on their own two feet. The former will be profiled relentlessly in the Tory press, the latter will be largely ignored.

    I think "where you live" is indeed the key SO. The cap is simply not going to bite on those who are not getting substantial HB, however many children they have. Where I think Labour goes wrong on this is that it thinks people have a right to live or continue to live in expensive areas whilst on benefit. Any view to the contrary is described as ethnic cleansing and immoral.

    But the average family that owns a house and falls on hard times eventually has to downsize. Why should it be different for those on benefits?

    Underlying this with some on the left is an implicit acceptance of benefits as a lifestyle choice. That is what the majority don't like and what the Tories have been so much more effective at tapping in to. The reality of course is that those who think it is a valid choice tend to be middle class intellectuals with little or no experience of life on benefits. Those that have tend to a different view.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited May 2015
    Oblivion?

    Unless the Tories lose the reputation for fiscal prudence, Labour are going to be out of power for a good few yrs, in fact I doubt they could get back to majority status, their best hope will be the dreaded Labour/SNP join up.. and that was enough to frighten voters into the Tory camp

    Its going to be a long road back, and none of the current leadership candidates inspires.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    The Conservatives being split is nothing new. A referendum to settle the matter one way or another can end the schism hopefully.

    What CHANGE do you foresee that hasn't already happened to make the party more divided?

    The only way that I can see a referendum settling the issue is if Cameron gets a really good deal (in the eyes of most Conservatives), that deal is legally binding, and there's a big win for In.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    I wish I could get 23k a year from the Government...after paying taxes for 60 years I get the princely sum of 143 ppw..and at age 75 have to go out to work to make ends meet.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Reestev said:

    Thank you, picked a bad night to break cover I think

    Don't worry - there'll be a longer piece to comment on this afternoon. :-)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    "Labour has long been an alliance between upper middle class intellectuals and working class people. Clement Attlee was a public school boy for example, but one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time."

    Indeed, and what was once a strength is becoming a liability. Some Labour voters are beginning to think that they are despised by these posh know-it-alls.

    The Tories may eat babies and call them oiks but they don't spend all their time sneering at them. Some in Labour are aware of this - hence the reaction to Mrs Duffy and Ms Thornberry.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    What does labour do next is a good question. They have lost sight of who their target market is, Blair and Mandelson may have won 3 elections but ultimately they ruined the party. The main spokesperson right now is Harman, she is the type of bland, centrist, cliched politician that traditional labour voters recoil from. They need to decide if they want Guardian readers or Mirror readers to vote for them, there's loads more of the latter and they despise the elitists that are currently calling the shots.

    Labour has long been an alliance between upper middle class intellectuals and working class people. Clement Attlee was a public school boy for example, but one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time.

    The class structure is changing, with far fewer people working in large industries, and Labour has been historically too centered on these and on public sector workers.
    Quite. One of the more scathing criticisms that Messina had of the pollsters was that they were modelling the electorate as it had been in 2010 rather than 2015. In 5 years the headcount in the public sector was reduced by as many as it had been increased by in the previous 10. There were a million fewer working for the State. There were nearly 3m more working in the private sector. Of those nearly 1m were self employed (with varying degrees of reality of course).

    These are big numbers and I expect there to be more big numbers in this Parliament. There may well be another 1m gouged out of the public sector. There will almost certainly be more self employed. Hopefully the trends on overall employment will continue. There will be many fewer families entitled to in work benefits and they will taper more sharply on earnings.

    By 2020 the electorate will have changed again and not in a way that would favour the current Labour party. They need to get ahead of the curve on this and start thinking about how they are going to appeal to the electorate then, not what it was in 2010.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    HYUFD said:

    The latest yougov has Labour voters dividing 60% In 18% Out, the Tories are split 36% In 44% Out. Overall it is 44% In 36% Out
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/24/low-expectations-eu-negotiations/

    Scots Tories were 98% in favour of the Union.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    The 'bedroom tax' is precisely the kind of distraction Labour needs to avoid being drawn into. By 2020 it will have been around for the best part of a decade and people will be used to it. Labour agreed with the principle happily enough when they introduced it for private sector tenants (many of whom would also have been their voters).

    The reason Labour kicked up a fuss when the Con-LD coalition extended and equalised the benefit's rules is the massive preponderance of middle-class articulate Labour supporters on the boards of housing associations who kicked off about it; people who carry far more weight within the Labour movement than their raw numbers would indicate.

    But overall, it's not an unpopular move: those who don't pay it see an element of fairness, those in the private sector see their discrimination being ended, and those not benefitting from it in the public sector saw people living in larger accommodation than them having to start paying for it.

    In any case, there'll be new benefit cuts to come. Labour would be much better advised to campaign on those.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    The latest yougov has Labour voters dividing 60% In 18% Out, the Tories are split 36% In 44% Out. Overall it is 44% In 36% Out
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/24/low-expectations-eu-negotiations/

    Scots Tories were 98% in favour of the Union.
    I frankly wonder who those 2% were. I never met one.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    HYUFD said:

    Danny656 No, yougov has 60%+ of Labour voters wanting to stay in the EU, the Tories are split down the middle, it is the Tories who have most to lose to UKIP now, if Labour voters did not vote UKIP with North London intelligentsia Ed as leader they will not with northern Andy, Watford Liz, or Pontefract Yvette

    Yvette's no more from Pontefract than Ed Miliband is from Doncaster.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    The latest yougov has Labour voters dividing 60% In 18% Out, the Tories are split 36% In 44% Out. Overall it is 44% In 36% Out
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/24/low-expectations-eu-negotiations/

    Scots Tories were 98% in favour of the Union.
    I frankly wonder who those 2% were. I never met one.
    The same 2% who believe in vampires.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    The 'bedroom tax' is precisely the kind of distraction Labour needs to avoid being drawn into. By 2020 it will have been around for the best part of a decade and people will be used to it. Labour agreed with the principle happily enough when they introduced it for private sector tenants (many of whom would also have been their voters).

    The reason Labour kicked up a fuss when the Con-LD coalition extended and equalised the benefit's rules is the massive preponderance of middle-class articulate Labour supporters on the boards of housing associations who kicked off about it; people who carry far more weight within the Labour movement than their raw numbers would indicate.

    But overall, it's not an unpopular move: those who don't pay it see an element of fairness, those in the private sector see their discrimination being ended, and those not benefitting from it in the public sector saw people living in larger accommodation than them having to start paying for it.

    In any case, there'll be new benefit cuts to come. Labour would be much better advised to campaign on those.
    The biggest unfairness of the bedroom tax was its imposition on existing households who had made their arrangements. That has undoubtedly caused some genuine hardship and an increase in arrears for those not able to find alternative, smaller accommodation.

    But the longer it exists the less of an issue that becomes as the adjustments are painfully made. I hope lessons have been learned for the application of benefit cuts to come.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    edited May 2015
    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    Labour should NOT campaign in a big way to stay IN. They can let it be known through statements and a few party only meetings that they were in favour of staying IN.

    Labour should NOT campaign alongside Cameron / Tories. There is nothing to gain for Labour.
    That would be one way to get the Lib Dems back into the game.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    WRT benefit cuts, I can't link, but there's an interesting guest piece from a disabled woman on Archbishop Cranmer's site, detailing how she was horrified by the election result. I don't agree with her, but it wasn't the usual GMW whinge, and is worth reading.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    What does labour do next is a good question. They have lost sight of who their target market is, Blair and Mandelson may have won 3 elections but ultimately they ruined the party. The main spokesperson right now is Harman, she is the type of bland, centrist, cliched politician that traditional labour voters recoil from. They need to decide if they want Guardian readers or Mirror readers to vote for them, there's loads more of the latter and they despise the elitists that are currently calling the shots.

    The Mirror sells less than 1m a day now and I wonder how many of those are to under 45s. To win, Labour needs at least 35% (as Miliband knew). It needs Sun readers in large numbers, as well as Mirror and Guardian readers.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    The Guardian piece and the Government memo that it reports are more balanced than the headline suggests: essentially it says that child poverty will increase significantly as a result of the lower cap unless the effect is that the parents obtain more or better-paid work. This is because the cap mainly hits larger families and the benefits affected are often those related to children.

    Anyone who has had much to do with people dependent on benefits knows that there's a range from people who are struggling honestly and desperately to outright scroungers, but the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons. Merely punishing them doesn't address the problem seriously. I think even people on benefits would be up for a lower cap if it was linked to more proactive help, including subsidised work experience, but with working tax credit also under pressure the impression given is that they're just seen as a group to be squeezed.

    Electorally, this has few consequences, since they are a minority who in any case tend not to vote. But as a largely stand-alone initiative it's not a decent policy.

    You omit to mention the introduction of universal credit. A change in welfare that helps those who have difficulty getting full time regular employment. It gives the recipient enormous flexibility.

    It might just end the Benefits Trap. A pernicious, frustrating and life sucking experience.

    The other changes we have had over the last five years (many of them built on existing policies introduced towards the end of the labour government) have had an enormous impact on attitudes to benefits from the recipients themselves.

    There is a resigned acceptance that if you can work you probably will have to. This is a real turn around. It might seem that the extensive and expansive use of sanctions is unfair, but the tough love has worked.

    The government has successfully aligned benefits with the world of work. When you work you are held responsible for your actions. If you are late, or just dont turn up you can lose your job, ditto if you make no effort. When you work you pay your rent/mortgage from your income. If you want a bigger place you pay more for it.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    DavidL said:

    AndyJS said:

    notme said:

    FPT:
    Guardian leading on "thousands to be plunged into poverty by benefits cut".

    Is a max £23k (tax free), the take home equivalent of a salary of £29,500 now 'poverty'?

    According to www.globalrichlist.net a £29,500 income puts you in the top 0.66% of the worlds income, and the equivalent of £15.36 an hour.

    Not many people in my town earn £15 an hour.

    I'm earning less than £23k at the moment, so I'm living in poverty according to the Guardian. I would have to disagree with that assessment. Anyone for example who's just started setting up their own business would fall into this category.

    Doesn't it rather depend on where you live and the number of dependents you have? No single person is going to be getting close to £23,000 worth of welfare support a year. Almost all those affected will be families with young children - there will be some feckless parents among them and then there'll be those who are in genuine need and doing all they can to stand on their own two feet. The former will be profiled relentlessly in the Tory press, the latter will be largely ignored.

    I think "where you live" is indeed the key SO. The cap is simply not going to bite on those who are not getting substantial HB, however many children they have. Where I think Labour goes wrong on this is that it thinks people have a right to live or continue to live in expensive areas whilst on benefit. Any view to the contrary is described as ethnic cleansing and immoral.

    But the average family that owns a house and falls on hard times eventually has to downsize. Why should it be different for those on benefits?

    Underlying this with some on the left is an implicit acceptance of benefits as a lifestyle choice. That is what the majority don't like and what the Tories have been so much more effective at tapping in to. The reality of course is that those who think it is a valid choice tend to be middle class intellectuals with little or no experience of life on benefits. Those that have tend to a different view.
    Top post - and one which the people with influence in the Labour party will never understand. It is harsh but one of life's lessons is that if you are not a good earner, for whatever reason, both you, and if you are selfish enough to have children, them too, will ahve more limited lifestyle choices open to you. This is not something that the government can change - and nor should it interfere with in most cases.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    The latest yougov has Labour voters dividing 60% In 18% Out, the Tories are split 36% In 44% Out. Overall it is 44% In 36% Out
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/24/low-expectations-eu-negotiations/

    Scots Tories were 98% in favour of the Union.
    And somehow Labour supporters argued that it would be Cameron's fault if the Union were lost....perhaps had they attended to their own house, before criticising others'....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Reestev said:

    Sorry, I've been a lurker for some time and decided to leave cover, hello all

    Breaking cover in a very enthusiastic way, like an old man who finally decides it's time to run around Stonehenge in the nude, his beard flapping in the wind ;)

    Welcome anyway! You'll fit right in.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    edited May 2015
    Good morning, everyone.

    Just checked Betfair's tennis offering. They now have stats back up (huzzah) but they're inferior to the old page (boo).

    Instead of one big stats page, you get a smaller offering on each individual match. The detail is somewhat, but importantly, decreased, so you get a head-to-head comparison but you only get raw numbers (1:5, say) rather than who won on what surface by what margin, which used to be available.

    It is both significantly better than nothing and significantly worse than it was.

    Edited extra bit: welcome to pb.com, Mr. Reestev.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    What does labour do next is a good question. They have lost sight of who their target market is, Blair and Mandelson may have won 3 elections but ultimately they ruined the party. The main spokesperson right now is Harman, she is the type of bland, centrist, cliched politician that traditional labour voters recoil from. They need to decide if they want Guardian readers or Mirror readers to vote for them, there's loads more of the latter and they despise the elitists that are currently calling the shots.

    Labour has long been an alliance between upper middle class intellectuals and working class people. Clement Attlee was a public school boy for example, but one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time.

    The class structure is changing, with far fewer people working in large industries, and Labour has been historically too centered on these and on public sector workers.
    Quite. One of the more scathing criticisms that Messina had of the pollsters was that they were modelling the electorate as it had been in 2010 rather than 2015. In 5 years the headcount in the public sector was reduced by as many as it had been increased by in the previous 10. There were a million fewer working for the State. There were nearly 3m more working in the private sector. Of those nearly 1m were self employed (with varying degrees of reality of course).

    These are big numbers and I expect there to be more big numbers in this Parliament. There may well be another 1m gouged out of the public sector. There will almost certainly be more self employed. Hopefully the trends on overall employment will continue. There will be many fewer families entitled to in work benefits and they will taper more sharply on earnings.

    By 2020 the electorate will have changed again and not in a way that would favour the current Labour party. They need to get ahead of the curve on this and start thinking about how they are going to appeal to the electorate then, not what it was in 2010.
    Mrs Thatcher's transforming idea was that if council tenants owned their own homes then they would become more like Conservatives in other ways. It worked. George Osborne has a similiar idea to alter the electorate by converting public sector workers to private sector ones. The change in employment does bring about changes in other attitudes.

    It is an old political joke that what the party needs is to change the electorate; both of these have seen the truth behind the joke.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    HYUFD said:

    Danny656 No, yougov has 60%+ of Labour voters wanting to stay in the EU, the Tories are split down the middle, it is the Tories who have most to lose to UKIP now, if Labour voters did not vote UKIP with North London intelligentsia Ed as leader they will not with northern Andy, Watford Liz, or Pontefract Yvette

    On the EU question, Cameron has to allow individuals in his party to campaign on either sides. They will anyway so it's not really any net loss. There will inevitably be a government line and so those in the No camp will be labelled rebels but if there were senior figures leading it, that would mitigate a lot of the damage UKIP might otherwise do. The trick is putting the pieces back together again afterwards but the alternative is to alienate a huge swathe of support.

    The same applies to Labour.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Sean_F said:

    WRT benefit cuts, I can't link, but there's an interesting guest piece from a disabled woman on Archbishop Cranmer's site, detailing how she was horrified by the election result. I don't agree with her, but it wasn't the usual GMW whinge, and is worth reading.

    http://archbishopcranmer.com/an-open-letter-from-a-disabled-christian-to-conservative-voters/

    thanks. Im reading it now...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    CD13 said:

    "Labour has long been an alliance between upper middle class intellectuals and working class people. Clement Attlee was a public school boy for example, but one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time."

    Indeed, and what was once a strength is becoming a liability. Some Labour voters are beginning to think that they are despised by these posh know-it-alls.

    The Tories may eat babies and call them oiks but they don't spend all their time sneering at them. Some in Labour are aware of this - hence the reaction to Mrs Duffy and Ms Thornberry.

    The difference is that the working class used to be represented at the top by people like Bevin. Nowadays, it is entirely dominated by middle class intellectuals and - worse - political insiders.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    Labour should NOT campaign in a big way to stay IN. They can let it be known through statements and a few party only meetings that they were in favour of staying IN.

    Labour should NOT campaign alongside Cameron / Tories. There is nothing to gain for Labour.
    So Labour doesn't play a leading role in arguably the most important decision of our generation because there's no partisan advantage?

    That's the quickest route to irrelevance, my friend
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    The 'bedroom tax' is precisely the kind of distraction Labour needs to avoid being drawn into. By 2020 it will have been around for the best part of a decade and people will be used to it. Labour agreed with the principle happily enough when they introduced it for private sector tenants (many of whom would also have been their voters).

    The reason Labour kicked up a fuss when the Con-LD coalition extended and equalised the benefit's rules is the massive preponderance of middle-class articulate Labour supporters on the boards of housing associations who kicked off about it; people who carry far more weight within the Labour movement than their raw numbers would indicate.

    But overall, it's not an unpopular move: those who don't pay it see an element of fairness, those in the private sector see their discrimination being ended, and those not benefitting from it in the public sector saw people living in larger accommodation than them having to start paying for it.

    In any case, there'll be new benefit cuts to come. Labour would be much better advised to campaign on those.
    The biggest unfairness of the bedroom tax was its imposition on existing households who had made their arrangements. That has undoubtedly caused some genuine hardship and an increase in arrears for those not able to find alternative, smaller accommodation.

    But the longer it exists the less of an issue that becomes as the adjustments are painfully made. I hope lessons have been learned for the application of benefit cuts to come.
    The "bedroom tax" would have been a much fairer imposition if it was only applied after the tenant had refused a smaller property within a reasonable distance.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    Labour should NOT campaign in a big way to stay IN. They can let it be known through statements and a few party only meetings that they were in favour of staying IN.

    Labour should NOT campaign alongside Cameron / Tories. There is nothing to gain for Labour.
    So Labour doesn't play a leading role in arguably the most important decision of our generation because there's no partisan advantage?

    That's the quickest route to irrelevance, my friend
    Charles Good Morning.. E mail on here seems to be v variable. I was going to ask about Lord Hailsham's autobiographies, had you read them and which to read ?? a sparrows flight or both?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    Labour should NOT campaign in a big way to stay IN. They can let it be known through statements and a few party only meetings that they were in favour of staying IN.

    Labour should NOT campaign alongside Cameron / Tories. There is nothing to gain for Labour.
    So Labour doesn't play a leading role in arguably the most important decision of our generation because there's no partisan advantage?

    That's the quickest route to irrelevance, my friend
    Charles Good Morning.. E mail on here seems to be v variable. I was going to ask about Lord Hailsham's autobiographies, had you read them and which to read ?? a sparrows flight or both?
    A Sparrow's Flight is excellent. My thoughts here:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RE0Y2L423P1S3

    I've not read The Door Wherein I Went but if it's half as good as A Sparrow's Flight it'll still be worth it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    Would you be able to give me details of your foundation?
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    notme said:

    Sean_F said:

    WRT benefit cuts, I can't link, but there's an interesting guest piece from a disabled woman on Archbishop Cranmer's site, detailing how she was horrified by the election result. I don't agree with her, but it wasn't the usual GMW whinge, and is worth reading.

    http://archbishopcranmer.com/an-open-letter-from-a-disabled-christian-to-conservative-voters/

    thanks. Im reading it now...
    Actually a lot of it is whinge, some of it misinforming. As soon as I see 'Bedroom Tax' I mentally vomit 'entitlement'. Much of it follows in that fashion. She makes a fair point about the independent living fund though. While it hasnt been cut it has been transferred over to local authorities. But as local authorities are having to make some pretty difficult decision regarding their social services its unlikely to be designated for its specific purpose.

    To quote her:
    "There are so many in the world who view sick and disabled people as sub-human; parasites on our economy. "

    Erm no, there arent. In fact I dont think I have ever met anyone who expresses that view.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,952
    Labour has a broken business model. It looks to build an ever expanding public sector on the back of borrowing and taxing the private sector. It has spectacularly collapsed each time they try it. And each time it collapses, it is the poorest in society who get punched hardest in the face.

    And every time, rather than take responsibility for its actions, say sorry to those they hurt, Labour just blames the evil, baby-eating Tories, rather than accept the pain is theirs alone. It is the inevitable consequence of market forces.

    Trouble is, Labour, the electorate is wising up to you.

    They see you as being anti-business - the very business that is going to create them jobs. They see through the cynical raising of top income tax rates to 50% in the dying days of a 13 year regime, just to rant about an incoming Govt. making "tax cuts for millionaires" - seemingly unaware of the irony of that claim being made by a front bench made up of people who are themselves millionaires. The electorate sees the cynical "weaponising" of the NHS. A party less interested in medical outcomes than in political advantage. They see a Labour party that sells mugs to itself proclaiming how it will control immigration, whilst having overseen - without asking the voters - the biggest change in the make-up of our population since the Norman conquests.

    In short, they see the only thing about Labour that is world-class: its hypocrisy.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    HYUFD said:

    Danny656 No, yougov has 60%+ of Labour voters wanting to stay in the EU, the Tories are split down the middle, it is the Tories who have most to lose to UKIP now, if Labour voters did not vote UKIP with North London intelligentsia Ed as leader they will not with northern Andy, Watford Liz, or Pontefract Yvette

    On the EU question, Cameron has to allow individuals in his party to campaign on either sides. They will anyway so it's not really any net loss. There will inevitably be a government line and so those in the No camp will be labelled rebels but if there were senior figures leading it, that would mitigate a lot of the damage UKIP might otherwise do. The trick is putting the pieces back together again afterwards but the alternative is to alienate a huge swathe of support.

    The same applies to Labour.
    Both sides should allow members and MPs to campaign on either side of the Brexit referendum (and in the Yougov 25% of LDs were Outers too). While this does tend to split a party, these sorts of splits are much harder to deal with in government than in opposition.

    The In Campaign needs most of all to get the youngsters engaged, there is a decisive majority for In in the under 40's; so high levels of engagement would be helpful. Interesting to see that in the over 65's there was a slight majority for Out, but not by much.

    Young people have a much more positive attitude to Europe, and see the advantages of freedom of movement, continent wide environmental protection, and an independent court of human rights that the government of the day cannot overrule.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    Labour should NOT campaign in a big way to stay IN. They can let it be known through statements and a few party only meetings that they were in favour of staying IN.

    Labour should NOT campaign alongside Cameron / Tories. There is nothing to gain for Labour.
    So Labour doesn't play a leading role in arguably the most important decision of our generation because there's no partisan advantage?

    That's the quickest route to irrelevance, my friend
    Charles Good Morning.. E mail on here seems to be v variable. I was going to ask about Lord Hailsham's autobiographies, had you read them and which to read ?? a sparrows flight or both?
    A Sparrow's Flight is excellent. My thoughts here:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RE0Y2L423P1S3

    I've not read The Door Wherein I Went but if it's half as good as A Sparrow's Flight it'll still be worth it.
    Ty DH
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    notme said:

    notme said:

    Sean_F said:

    WRT benefit cuts, I can't link, but there's an interesting guest piece from a disabled woman on Archbishop Cranmer's site, detailing how she was horrified by the election result. I don't agree with her, but it wasn't the usual GMW whinge, and is worth reading.

    http://archbishopcranmer.com/an-open-letter-from-a-disabled-christian-to-conservative-voters/

    thanks. Im reading it now...
    Actually a lot of it is whinge, some of it misinforming. As soon as I see 'Bedroom Tax' I mentally vomit 'entitlement'. Much of it follows in that fashion. She makes a fair point about the independent living fund though. While it hasnt been cut it has been transferred over to local authorities. But as local authorities are having to make some pretty difficult decision regarding their social services its unlikely to be designated for its specific purpose.

    To quote her:
    "There are so many in the world who view sick and disabled people as sub-human; parasites on our economy. "

    Erm no, there arent. In fact I dont think I have ever met anyone who expresses that view.
    Some of the comments, though, seem to bear out her point. I've known people express the view that severely disabled people should be humanely put down.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    The 'bedroom tax' is precisely the kind of distraction Labour needs to avoid being drawn into. By 2020 it will have been around for the best part of a decade and people will be used to it. Labour agreed with the principle happily enough when they introduced it for private sector tenants (many of whom would also have been their voters).

    The reason Labour kicked up a fuss when the Con-LD coalition extended and equalised the benefit's rules is the massive preponderance of middle-class articulate Labour supporters on the boards of housing associations who kicked off about it; people who carry far more weight within the Labour movement than their raw numbers would indicate.

    But overall, it's not an unpopular move: those who don't pay it see an element of fairness, those in the private sector see their discrimination being ended, and those not benefitting from it in the public sector saw people living in larger accommodation than them having to start paying for it.

    In any case, there'll be new benefit cuts to come. Labour would be much better advised to campaign on those.
    The biggest unfairness of the bedroom tax was its imposition on existing households who had made their arrangements. That has undoubtedly caused some genuine hardship and an increase in arrears for those not able to find alternative, smaller accommodation.

    But the longer it exists the less of an issue that becomes as the adjustments are painfully made. I hope lessons have been learned for the application of benefit cuts to come.
    The "bedroom tax" would have been a much fairer imposition if it was only applied after the tenant had refused a smaller property within a reasonable distance.
    I agree that bringing it in all at once was an issue. A staggering process should have also occurred for those who had two rooms empty. One of the reasons why we had a shortage of smaller properties is precisely because size didnt matter, if you got the full award you got the full award.

    In the private rental market getting house shares and single bedroom accommodation is pretty easy, in fact the early changes that the government made about single room/shared room rate for single people right up to 35 created a big demand in the private sector, which it met pretty darn quickly.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    HYUFD said:

    Danny656 No, yougov has 60%+ of Labour voters wanting to stay in the EU, the Tories are split down the middle, it is the Tories who have most to lose to UKIP now, if Labour voters did not vote UKIP with North London intelligentsia Ed as leader they will not with northern Andy, Watford Liz, or Pontefract Yvette

    On the EU question, Cameron has to allow individuals in his party to campaign on either sides. They will anyway so it's not really any net loss. There will inevitably be a government line and so those in the No camp will be labelled rebels but if there were senior figures leading it, that would mitigate a lot of the damage UKIP might otherwise do. The trick is putting the pieces back together again afterwards but the alternative is to alienate a huge swathe of support.

    The same applies to Labour.
    Both sides should allow members and MPs to campaign on either side of the Brexit referendum (and in the Yougov 25% of LDs were Outers too). While this does tend to split a party, these sorts of splits are much harder to deal with in government than in opposition.

    The In Campaign needs most of all to get the youngsters engaged, there is a decisive majority for In in the under 40's; so high levels of engagement would be helpful. Interesting to see that in the over 65's there was a slight majority for Out, but not by much.

    Young people have a much more positive attitude to Europe, and see the advantages of freedom of movement, continent wide environmental protection, and an independent court of human rights that the government of the day cannot overrule.
    Young people have always been positive about the EU, until they get older.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    Labour should NOT campaign in a big way to stay IN. They can let it be known through statements and a few party only meetings that they were in favour of staying IN.

    Labour should NOT campaign alongside Cameron / Tories. There is nothing to gain for Labour.
    So Labour doesn't play a leading role in arguably the most important decision of our generation because there's no partisan advantage?

    That's the quickest route to irrelevance, my friend
    Charles Good Morning.. E mail on here seems to be v variable. I was going to ask about Lord Hailsham's autobiographies, had you read them and which to read ?? a sparrows flight or both?
    A Sparrow's Flight is excellent. My thoughts here:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RE0Y2L423P1S3

    I've not read The Door Wherein I Went but if it's half as good as A Sparrow's Flight it'll still be worth it.
    Ty DH
    No worries. If the review's helpful, feel free to vote on it as such ;-)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    Labour should NOT campaign in a big way to stay IN. They can let it be known through statements and a few party only meetings that they were in favour of staying IN.

    Labour should NOT campaign alongside Cameron / Tories. There is nothing to gain for Labour.
    So Labour doesn't play a leading role in arguably the most important decision of our generation because there's no partisan advantage?

    That's the quickest route to irrelevance, my friend
    Charles Good Morning.. E mail on here seems to be v variable. I was going to ask about Lord Hailsham's autobiographies, had you read them and which to read ?? a sparrows flight or both?
    I've read the first hundred pages of them all several times ;)

    The Door Wherein I Went is, for me personally. much more interesting because it's focused on his spiritual journey and faith rather than "the facts of his life". But it was written in the 70s, so only at the end of Act 2 of his political career.

    The Sparrow's Flight (taken from the phrase in Mark) is a more conventional autobiography and was written in the late 80s, I believe, so more comprehensive.

    Geoffrey Lewis's biography is also good, and written with the co-operation of Hailsham so pretty comprehensive

    http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/geoffrey-m-lewis/lord-hailsham-a-life-9780712666251.aspx
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    DavidL said:

    AndyJS said:

    notme said:

    FPT:
    G.

    I
    D

    I think "where you live" is indeed the key SO. The cap is simply not going to bite on those who are not getting substantial HB, however many children they have. Where I think Labour goes wrong on this is that it thinks people have a right to live or continue to live in expensive areas whilst on benefit. Any view to the contrary is described as ethnic cleansing and immoral.

    But the average family that owns a house and falls on hard times eventually has to downsize. Why should it be different for those on benefits?
    I think this absolutely hits to the heart of the matter. Like many, most people I know are utterly uninterested in politics and even 'unpopular' things from the government do not really provoke much comment, but the cap is one of the very few issues where so many people whose politics otherwise I don't even know, as well as those I know are Tory or Labour leaning, are suddenly full of very strong opinions, and it isn't to agree with the outrage at the idea. It's an issue that cuts through to a lot of people in a way most don't because it appears to them to be intrinsically unfair not to do it
    notme said:

    notme said:

    Sean_F said:

    WRT benefit cuts, I can't link, but there's an interesting guest piece from a disabled woman on Archbishop Cranmer's site, detailing how she was horrified by the election result. I don't agree with her, but it wasn't the usual GMW whinge, and is worth reading.

    http://archbishopcranmer.com/an-open-letter-from-a-disabled-christian-to-conservative-voters/

    thanks. Im reading it now...
    To quote her:
    "There are so many in the world who view sick and disabled people as sub-human; parasites on our economy. "

    Erm no, there arent. In fact I dont think I have ever met anyone who expresses that view.
    That is a little hyperbolic, admittedly. I could accept that many people are not as sympathetic or cognizant of the difficulties many sick and disabled face as perhaps they should be, and certainly as much as she thinks she would be, but it may be she is regarding that as people viewing people like her as sub-human, which is an unfair extrapolation on her end rather than an actual reflection of the others' opinion, even if her frustration and worry resonant in many ways.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,712

    DavidL said:

    What does labour do next is a good question. They have lost sight of who their target market is, Blair and Mandelson may have won 3 elections but ultimately they ruined the party. The main spokesperson right now is Harman, she is the type of bland, centrist, cliched politician that traditional labour voters recoil from. They need to decide if they want Guardian readers or Mirror readers to vote for them, there's loads more of the latter and they despise the elitists that are currently calling the shots.

    Labour has long been an alliance between upper middle class intellectuals and working class people. Clement Attlee was a public school boy for example, but one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time.

    The class structure is changing, with far fewer people working in large industries, and Labour has been historically too centered on these and on public sector workers.
    Quite. One of the more scathing criticisms that Messina had of the pollsters was that they were modelling the electorate as it had been in 2010 rather than 2015. In 5 years the headcount in the public sector was reduced by as many as it had been increased by in the previous 10. There were a million fewer working for the State. There were nearly 3m more working in the private sector. Of those nearly 1m were self employed (with varying degrees of reality of course).

    These are big numbers and I expect there to be more big numbers in this Parliament. There may well be another 1m gouged out of the public sector. There will almost certainly be more self employed. Hopefully the trends on overall employment will continue. There will be many fewer families entitled to in work benefits and they will taper more sharply on earnings.

    By 2020 the electorate will have changed again and not in a way that would favour the current Labour party. They need to get ahead of the curve on this and start thinking about how they are going to appeal to the electorate then, not what it was in 2010.
    Mrs Thatcher's transforming idea was that if council tenants owned their own homes then they would become more like Conservatives in other ways. It worked. George Osborne has a similiar idea to alter the electorate by converting public sector workers to private sector ones. The change in employment does bring about changes in other attitudes.

    It is an old political joke that what the party needs is to change the electorate; both of these have seen the truth behind the joke.

    But the Tories have a long-term problem with the trend of decline in home ownership.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    It sounds as if both you and Nick P should be supporting Liz Kendall:

    http://www.lizkendall.org/liz-kendalls-speech-at-de-montfort-university-29-may-2015/

    Benefits do not remedy child poverty, they remedy parental poverty. The better way out of Child poverty is Kendalls approach as described in the speech yesterday.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,712
    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    In my experience, regular and consistent 1:1 coaching and mentoring can work miracles.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sean_F said:

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    Would you be able to give me details of your foundation?
    http://bulldogtrust.org/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Sean_F said:

    notme said:

    notme said:

    Sean_F said:

    WRT benefit cuts, I can't link, but there's an interesting guest piece from a disabled woman on Archbishop Cranmer's site, detailing how she was horrified by the election result. I don't agree with her, but it wasn't the usual GMW whinge, and is worth reading.

    http://archbishopcranmer.com/an-open-letter-from-a-disabled-christian-to-conservative-voters/

    thanks. Im reading it now...
    Actually a lot of it is whinge, some of it misinforming. As soon as I see 'Bedroom Tax' I mentally vomit 'entitlement'. Much of it follows in that fashion. She makes a fair point about the independent living fund though. While it hasnt been cut it has been transferred over to local authorities. But as local authorities are having to make some pretty difficult decision regarding their social services its unlikely to be designated for its specific purpose.

    To quote her:
    "There are so many in the world who view sick and disabled people as sub-human; parasites on our economy. "

    Erm no, there arent. In fact I dont think I have ever met anyone who expresses that view.
    Some of the comments, though, seem to bear out her point. I've known people express the view that severely disabled people should be humanely put down.
    I am surprised people would express such a view in person, though i would be wary of suggesting there are 'so many' people who hold such a view as being borne out by comments on the article. On that basis, judging by YouTube and the Telegraph or whereever, we are around 90% racist, which I don't think is the case. The inclusion of 'so' in her statement is important, as it adds emphasis to the 'many' and could suggest a major proportion of society, rather than just a depressingly large if not statistically as significant group of arseholes.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Sean_F said:

    notme said:

    notme said:

    Sean_F said:

    WRT benefit cuts, I can't link, but there's an interesting guest piece from a disabled woman on Archbishop Cranmer's site, detailing how she was horrified by the election result. I don't agree with her, but it wasn't the usual GMW whinge, and is worth reading.

    http://archbishopcranmer.com/an-open-letter-from-a-disabled-christian-to-conservative-voters/

    thanks. Im reading it now...
    Actually a lot of it is whinge, some of it misinforming. As soon as I see 'Bedroom Tax' I mentally vomit 'entitlement'. Much of it follows in that fashion. She makes a fair point about the independent living fund though. While it hasnt been cut it has been transferred over to local authorities. But as local authorities are having to make some pretty difficult decision regarding their social services its unlikely to be designated for its specific purpose.

    To quote her:
    "There are so many in the world who view sick and disabled people as sub-human; parasites on our economy. "

    Erm no, there arent. In fact I dont think I have ever met anyone who expresses that view.
    Some of the comments, though, seem to bear out her point. I've known people express the view that severely disabled people should be humanely put down.
    But those that hold those views arent doing it due to financial reasons, just that some very profoundly disabled people have no quality of life. People who are maybe kept alive by extrodinary and sustained medical intervention but have no real cognitive ability.

    It is an area that enrages passions for those impacted. But I repeat, I have never met anyone who meets the caricature she paints.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Betting Post

    Not one but two health warnings: my tennis tips have always been patchier than a pirate's eye, and I've had rotten luck in F1 this year, so the following tips should be treated with the same caution as a half-starved crocodile.

    Excepting the last, these French Open Betfair tips are all Third Round matches in the Men's Tournament, and play [I think] today.

    Anderson to beat Gasquet at 3.9. The Frenchman's very good but I feel this is more a 2.2-2.5 shot, and Anderson's underestimated.

    Goffin to beat Chardy at 1.58. Short odds for me, but I think Goffin's got a great chance and his odds are too long.

    Coric to beat Sock 2.98. Again, more of a 50/50, I think.

    Final tip plays tomorrow and is a Ladies' Tournament Fourth Round Match:
    Sharapova to beat Safarova in straight sets, 2.2. Sharapova's been playing well and has a 5:1 head-to-head advantage over her opponent.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    What does labour do next is a good question. They have lost sight of who their target market is, Blair and Mandelson may have won 3 elections but ultimately they ruined the party. The main spokesperson right now is Harman, she is the type of bland, centrist, cliched politician that traditional labour voters recoil from. They need to decide if they want Guardian readers or Mirror readers to vote for them, there's loads more of the latter and they despise the elitists that are currently calling the shots.

    Labour has long been an alliance between upper middle class intellectuals and working class people. Clement Attlee was a public school boy for example, but one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time.

    The class structure is changing, with far fewer people working in large industries, and Labour has been historically too centered on these and on public sector workers.
    Quite. One of the more scathing criticisms that Messina had of the pollsters was that they were modelling the electorate as it had been in 2010 rather than 2015. In 5 years the headcount in the public sector was reduced by as many as it had been increased by in the previous 10. There were a million fewer working for the State. There were nearly 3m more working in the private sector. Of those nearly 1m were self employed (with varying degrees of reality of course).

    By 2020 the electorate will have changed again and not in a way that would favour the current Labour party. They need to get ahead of the curve on this and start thinking about how they are going to appeal to the electorate then, not what it was in 2010.
    Mrs Thatcher's transforming idea was that if council tenants owned their own homes then they would become more like Conservatives in other ways. It worked. George Osborne has a similiar idea to alter the electorate by converting public sector workers to private sector ones. The change in employment does bring about changes in other attitudes.

    It is an old political joke that what the party needs is to change the electorate; both of these have seen the truth behind the joke.

    But the Tories have a long-term problem with the trend of decline in home ownership.
    They do indeed. Generation rent are not natural Tories, and neither are the private sector employees on exploitative contracts working for organisations like Serco or Interserve as contractors in health and social care.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    It sounds as if both you and Nick P should be supporting Liz Kendall:

    http://www.lizkendall.org/liz-kendalls-speech-at-de-montfort-university-29-may-2015/

    Benefits do not remedy child poverty, they remedy parental poverty. The better way out of Child poverty is Kendalls approach as described in the speech yesterday.
    No: Labour looks to the state as the solution in the first instance. I look to the little platoons.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    In my experience, regular and consistent 1:1 coaching and mentoring can work miracles.
    http://www.franklinscholars.org/

    This is a great organisation that we helped scale up from a concept being trialled in a single school
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    It sounds as if both you and Nick P should be supporting Liz Kendall:

    http://www.lizkendall.org/liz-kendalls-speech-at-de-montfort-university-29-may-2015/

    Benefits do not remedy child poverty, they remedy parental poverty. The better way out of Child poverty is Kendalls approach as described in the speech yesterday.
    She gave a speech at De Montfort University? - I shall have to remove my early support of her, as I'm a University of Leicester man. Bad move, Liz.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    It sounds as if both you and Nick P should be supporting Liz Kendall:

    http://www.lizkendall.org/liz-kendalls-speech-at-de-montfort-university-29-may-2015/

    Benefits do not remedy child poverty, they remedy parental poverty. The better way out of Child poverty is Kendalls approach as described in the speech yesterday.
    No: Labour looks to the state as the solution in the first instance. I look to the little platoons.
    The Charles Dickens approach of a benificent millionaire helping out the poor orphan is great as far as it goes, but is by its very nature limited in its extent.

    Liz is not statist, she wants public services shaped by their users to a much greater extent than either Tories or Labour have envisaged in the past.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,712
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    In my experience, regular and consistent 1:1 coaching and mentoring can work miracles.
    http://www.franklinscholars.org/

    This is a great organisation that we helped scale up from a concept being trialled in a single school
    Good for you Charles. From what I read of your posts on here, you do an awful lot to help make other people's lives better.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    Sounds like she needs some sort of snappy slogan, perhaps 'Education, education, education'.

    Identifying quality education as a key need is easy, I'm not sure that she has shown any indication she knows how to achieve it.

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    The better way out of Child poverty is Kendalls approach as described in the speech yesterday.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    felix said:

    AndyJS said:

    notme said:

    FPT:
    Guardian leading on "thousands to be plunged into poverty by benefits cut".

    Is a max £23k (tax free), the take home equivalent of a salary of £29,500 now 'poverty'?

    According to www.globalrichlist.net a £29,500 income puts you in the top 0.66% of the worlds income, and the equivalent of £15.36 an hour.

    Not many people in my town earn £15 an hour.

    I'm earning less than £23k at the moment, so I'm living in poverty according to the Guardian. I would have to disagree with that assessment. Anyone for example who's just started setting up their own business would fall into this category.

    Doesn't it rather depend on where you live and the number of dependents you have? No single person is going to be getting close to £23,000 worth of welfare support a year. Almost all those affected will be families with young children - there will be some feckless parents among them and then there'll be those who are in genuine need and doing all they can to stand on their own two feet. The former will be profiled relentlessly in the Tory press, the latter will be largely ignored.

    Unfair I think. There rather has not been enough emphasis on those who do work hard and who, rightly, do not want those who don't to receive more than them for doing nothing. Labour make a big mistake here - as does the Guardian. There was a post-election interview of a young black woman in Ilford. She said: 'we don't get any benefits so Labour hasnothing for us'. When annual benefit totals exceed average wages things are badly out of kilter. If you don't get this, then you need another look at your moral compass.
    It is criminal that people get more on benefits than they can get working. It should be impossible to get more than the minimum wage when you are not working. The whole system is bust and you have huge amounts of organisations, housing associations , etc etc feeding off the largesse, they are the ones crying wolf as they look to keep their fancy jobs and salaries.
    Fix the real problem of workhouse wages at the bottom , enable people to be able to live and not require / depend on benefits.
    It suits the Tories and/or their clones Labour to keep the system as it is. Neither of them want to fix it really, just tinker with it to suit their respective audiences. hard to blame anyone for not working when choice is £30K for lying in bed or £12K for minimum wage job.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,712

    DavidL said:

    What does labour do next is a good question. They have lost sight of who their target market is, Blair and Mandelson may have won 3 elections but ultimately they ruined the party. The main spokesperson right now is Harman, she is the type of bland, centrist, cliched politician that traditional labour voters recoil from. They need to decide if they want Guardian readers or Mirror readers to vote for them, there's loads more of the latter and they despise the elitists that are currently calling the shots.

    Labour has long been an alliance between upper middle class intellectuals and working class people. Clement Attlee was a public school boy for example, but one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time.

    The class structure is changing, with far fewer people working in large industries, and Labour has been historically too centered on these and on public sector workers.
    Quite. One of the more scathing criticisms that Messina had of the pollsters was that they were modelling the electorate as it had been in 2010 rather than 2015. In 5 years the headcount in the public sector was reduced by as many as it had been increased by in the previous 10. There were a million fewer working for the State. There were nearly 3m more working in the private sector. Of those nearly 1m

    By 2020 the electorate will have changed again and not in a way that would favour the current Labour party. They need to get ahead of the curve on this and start thinking about how they are going to appeal to the electorate then, not what it was in 2010.
    Mrs Thatcher's transforming idea was that if council tenants owned their own homes then they would become more like Conservatives in other ways. It worked. George Osborne has a similiar idea to alter the electorate by converting public sector workers to private sector ones. The change in employment does bring about changes in other attitudes.

    It is an old political joke that what the party needs is to change the electorate; both of these have seen the truth behind the joke.

    But the Tories have a long-term problem with the trend of decline in home ownership.
    They do indeed. Generation rent are not natural Tories, and neither are the private sector employees on exploitative contracts working for organisations like Serco or Interserve as contractors in health and social care.
    There are quite a few people earning shit money in shit jobs paying an awful lot to others of that to rent a shit house.

    I don't see these voters as the natural constituency of either of the main parties, but you can see why aspiration might be important to them.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    It sounds as if both you and Nick P should be supporting Liz Kendall:

    http://www.lizkendall.org/liz-kendalls-speech-at-de-montfort-university-29-may-2015/

    Benefits do not remedy child poverty, they remedy parental poverty. The better way out of Child poverty is Kendalls approach as described in the speech yesterday.
    No: Labour looks to the state as the solution in the first instance. I look to the little platoons.
    The Charles Dickens approach of a benificent millionaire helping out the poor orphan is great as far as it goes, but is by its very nature limited in its extent.

    Liz is not statist, she wants public services shaped by their users to a much greater extent than either Tories or Labour have envisaged in the past.
    Straw man. Please try harder.

    The state is not society.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    In my experience, regular and consistent 1:1 coaching and mentoring can work miracles.
    http://www.franklinscholars.org/

    This is a great organisation that we helped scale up from a concept being trialled in a single school
    Good for you Charles. From what I read of your posts on here, you do an awful lot to help make other people's lives better.
    I just chair meetings and make speeches. It's other people who do the real work ;)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny656 No, yougov has 60%+ of Labour voters wanting to stay in the EU, the Tories are split down the middle, it is the Tories who have most to lose to UKIP now, if Labour voters did not vote UKIP with North London intelligentsia Ed as leader they will not with northern Andy, Watford Liz, or Pontefract Yvette

    On the EU question, Cameron has to allow individuals in his party to campaign on either sides. They will anyway so it's not really any net loss. There will inevitably be a government line and so those in the No camp will be labelled rebels but if there were senior figures leading it, that would mitigate a lot of the damage UKIP might otherwise do. The trick is putting the pieces back together again afterwards but the alternative is to alienate a huge swathe of support.

    The same applies to Labour.
    Both sides should allow members and MPs to campaign on either side of the Brexit referendum (and in the Yougov 25% of LDs were Outers too). While this does tend to split a party, these sorts of splits are much harder to deal with in government than in opposition.

    The In Campaign needs most of all to get the youngsters engaged, there is a decisive majority for In in the under 40's; so high levels of engagement would be helpful. Interesting to see that in the over 65's there was a slight majority for Out, but not by much.

    Young people have a much more positive attitude to Europe, and see the advantages of freedom of movement, continent wide environmental protection, and an independent court of human rights that the government of the day cannot overrule.
    Young people have always been positive about the EU, until they get older.
    The over 40's split In/Out 38/42 and the over 60's 37/46; so it would seem that there is a fairly even split in the older age range. The 26-39 ages split 52/26 for In, a fairly decisive majority.

    If out want to win, they should contrive a campaign that disengages people (rather than riles them into voting), with as much boredom and as little passion as possible. The best chance for BOOers is a low turnout election where only older kippers vote.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,952

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    It sounds as if both you and Nick P should be supporting Liz Kendall:

    http://www.lizkendall.org/liz-kendalls-speech-at-de-montfort-university-29-may-2015/

    Benefits do not remedy child poverty, they remedy parental poverty. The better way out of Child poverty is Kendalls approach as described in the speech yesterday.
    No: Labour looks to the state as the solution in the first instance. I look to the little platoons.
    The Charles Dickens approach of a benificent millionaire helping out the poor orphan is great as far as it goes...
    Magwitch helping out Pip in Great Expectations might suggest otherwise!


  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,712
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    the typical case is people who would like to work or get better work but have objective reasons why it's difficult - limited education, intermittent illness, minor convictions, or other reasons.

    FWIW, one of our big focuses as a foundation is on "improving life chances" - literacy, recividism, etc. There are so many extremely talented people who could succeed in life but for one stupid mistake or one obstacle that they can't overcome: working with grassroot organisations to unlock that has to be the way forward
    In my experience, regular and consistent 1:1 coaching and mentoring can work miracles.
    http://www.franklinscholars.org/

    This is a great organisation that we helped scale up from a concept being trialled in a single school
    Good for you Charles. From what I read of your posts on here, you do an awful lot to help make other people's lives better.
    I just chair meetings and make speeches. It's other people who do the real work ;)
    It all counts. Providing leadership and effective administration is very important for success.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    Can I just say something very briefly about education. The bulk of discussion about how to improve education in the UK seems to be about Grammar Schools. But, as a country, we don't have a problem with the top 20% of the education pyramid: we have lots of people who graduate from good universities with good skills.

    Our problem is that someone at the 50th or 80th percentile point on the education spectrum is much less trained than someone at the same point in Germany or Sweden on Korea. If you go to a MacDonalds in Sweden, the guy behind the counter will speak perfect English. The man sweeping the street will speak perfect English too. Yet virtually no-one not in the top 10% most educated in the UK will speak anything other than pretty awful French. Likewise, the German apprenticeship system produces people who leave school and vocational training at 20 with very good marketable skills.

    In a globalised world, where none of us are going to get paid more than our skills command on the world stage, perhaps we be worrying more about the skills of the 80%.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Accept most of the spending cuts, with the exception of things like the 'Bedroom Tax' which annoy its core, oppose any tax cuts for the rich for now but support them for the poor and middle class and back Cameron to the hilt to stay in the EU, preferably campaigning alongside him in the In campaign, one way to start shifting Tory Out voters to UKIP and divide the Tories. Finally give full independence to Scottish Labour to go its own way

    The 'bedroom tax' is precisely the kind of distraction Labour needs to avoid being drawn into. By 2020 it will have been around for the best part of a decade and people will be used to it. Labour agreed with the principle happily enough when they introduced it for private sector tenants (many of whom would also have been their voters).

    The reason Labour kicked up a fuss when the Con-LD coalition extended and equalised the benefit's rules is the massive preponderance of middle-class articulate Labour supporters on the boards of housing associations who kicked off about it; people who carry far more weight within the Labour movement than their raw numbers would indicate.

    But overall, it's not an unpopular move: those who don't pay it see an element of fairness, those in the private sector see their discrimination being ended, and those not benefitting from it in the public sector saw people living in larger accommodation than them having to start paying for it.

    In any case, there'll be new benefit cuts to come. Labour would be much better advised to campaign on those.
    The biggest unfairness of the bedroom tax was its imposition on existing households who had made their arrangements. That has undoubtedly caused some genuine hardship and an increase in arrears for those not able to find alternative, smaller accommodation.

    But the longer it exists the less of an issue that becomes as the adjustments are painfully made. I hope lessons have been learned for the application of benefit cuts to come.
    David, you should well know that Tories are only concerned when their actions affect themselves and their chums, they deliberately introduced it to hammer poor people. Happy that they have spare houses not just a room but determined to beggar people who mostly through no choice of their own had one spare broom cupboard. You just cannot get much nastier than that.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    What does labour do next is a good question. They have lost sight of who their target market is, Blair and Mandelson may have won 3 elections but ultimately they ruined the party. The main spokesperson right now is Harman, she is the type of bland, centrist, cliched politician that traditional labour voters recoil from. They need to decide if they want Guardian readers or Mirror readers to vote for them, there's loads more of the latter and they despise the elitists that are currently calling the shots.

    The Mirror sells less than 1m a day now and I wonder how many of those are to under 45s. To win, Labour needs at least 35% (as Miliband knew). It needs Sun readers in large numbers, as well as Mirror and Guardian readers.
    I take your point about newspaper numbers, what I meant is that the voters labour have lost are more likely to laugh at Andy Capp than agree with Polly Toynbee. Guardian readers wouldn't ever consider ukip, Mirror readers will. Labour need to stop whinging about relative poverty and diversity and start talking in a way people on council estates relate to.

    Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part but for lots of reasons I believe the Labour Party will never get near power again, it has completely lost its sense of purpose and I don't see anybody in the party capable of leading them to an election victory.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Great leader column on the nonsense happening at the Hasidic Belz community in north London where the children of mothers who drive them to school will be turned away at the gates because women driving is supposedly immodest.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article4455525.ece
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    The latest yougov has Labour voters dividing 60% In 18% Out, the Tories are split 36% In 44% Out. Overall it is 44% In 36% Out
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/24/low-expectations-eu-negotiations/

    Scots Tories were 98% in favour of the Union.
    I frankly wonder who those 2% were. I never met one.
    2% of a very small number means the chances of ever meeting one is very unlikely.
This discussion has been closed.