PT Ed Miliband had a small bounce in London due to his north London background, however he did much worse in the north and Midlands and Wales and Scotland and in southern marginals in the likes of Kent and marginals in the East in Essex
"The BBC Trust will be axed and its powers handed to the communications regulator Ofcom, Westminster sources have revealed. For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter. The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks. It comes after John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, insisted that he does not have a “vendetta” against the corporation but warned that it needed a “very robust system in place” to deal with issues of impartiality"
Not before time!
LOL. They were going to abolish Ofcom before GE 2010, now they are giving Ofcom the BBC.
What's the LOL for? Abolishing something or giving the same thing a new proper role which justifies its continued existence seem like the only two sensible alternatives to choose between.
Because voters were sold "abolish the evil quangos! opposition yay!" before "we have to expand this bureaucracy to improve things", i.e. the oldest trick in the book.
PT Ed Miliband had a small bounce in London due to his north London background, however he did much worse in the north and Midlands and Wales and Scotland
Explain the Hendon constituency. Labour needed a 0.1% swing or just a 54-vote swing to take this London seat. Instead the Conservative majority increased to 7.5%. This was repeated in many London seats.
nigel4england He is not shouting her down at all, she is just performing the worst of the 3 politicians on the panel, Burnham did mention the importance of rewarding companies which pay a living wage through the tax system
Burnham is a real lightweight, if he is all Labour have to offer then you are looking at the end of them.
He did sound a bit lightweight on the Greece question admittedly, but I thought he was great on the tax credits and migrant crisis, sounded like he knew his stuff and actually showed some bloody passion on tax credits (unusual for Labour these days).
He was a bit better on the migrant crisis.
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
I'd love it if some of these greedy mega-corporations like McDonald's, raking in millions in profits, were actually made to pay their employees decently and thus make the need for tax credits redundant. Unfortunately, I have no faith in the Tories to have the guts to make them do that, so in the absence of that tax credits definitley should stay.
I agree, Tesco's even despite their recent troubles make huge profits yet rely on the taxpayer to subsidies wages.
No they don't. Tesco's pay their wages they pay which I'm sure are at or above minimum wage. There is no automatic subsidy to top up anyone's wages.
Yes they do. Tried to find chart previously on PB which I believe showed that the UK tax payer subsidises the wages of Tesco's staff to the region of £55 million. Perhaps some one else could find it or correct me?
It was a load of bollocks made up by a group of soap-dodging lefty rabble-rousing bellends called Citizens UK (citizensuk.org/taxpayer)
They spun some out of context numbers here: citizensuk.org/subsidy_report
Useful idiots at the Guardian and the Sunday Times reprinted it and it gets regurgitated as "fact" every now and then.
PT Maybe but a 7% lead is quite significant and was taken across the region, Burnham's increased majority may also be a reflection of his personal popularity
"The BBC Trust will be axed and its powers handed to the communications regulator Ofcom, Westminster sources have revealed. For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter. The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks. It comes after John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, insisted that he does not have a “vendetta” against the corporation but warned that it needed a “very robust system in place” to deal with issues of impartiality"
Not before time!
LOL. They were going to abolish Ofcom before GE 2010, now they are giving Ofcom the BBC.
What's the LOL for? Abolishing something or giving the same thing a new proper role which justifies its continued existence seem like the only two sensible alternatives to choose between.
Because voters were sold "abolish the evil quangos! opposition yay!" before "we have to expand this bureaucracy to improve things", i.e. the oldest trick in the book.
So one quango is abolished and another one dodges being axed by being given a real job. Not exactly the poster-child example of State expansion really.
Exactly Geoff! You can't both preach that we want to give benefits to the poorest in society and then bemoan how much is going to employees of companies that hire large numbers of unskilled workers.
If wages had to go up, then its entirely possible that companies like Tesco would hire less people. They're offering secure jobs to unskilled people and then slandered for doing precisely that. Its left-wing dogmatic nonsense. Companies like Tesco's do good work in hiring people that other people won't hire, it isn't unusual to see an employee with learning difficulties or Downs Syndrome etc working there - its an opportunity not exploitation.
PT Maybe but a 7% lead is quite significant and was taken across the region, Burnham's increased majority may also be a reflection of his personal popularity
Or the popularity of left-wing populism in a place like Leigh, just like Liverpool Walton. What works there is not guaranteed to work elsewhere in the NW.
The North is not homogenous. If it was there'd be no Tory seats, let alone seat like mine that swung TO the Tories this year. Leigh saw Labour's majority increased by 4% this year while Warrington South as an example saw the Conservatives majority increased by 2%. Appealing to one part of the North West can upset another part of the North West and vice-versa.
No groups of voters are homogenous, yet people constantly try to over-interpret polls on the basis of group behaviours which simply may not exist.
Exactly Geoff! You can't both preach that we want to give benefits to the poorest in society and then bemoan how much is going to employees of companies that hire large numbers of unskilled workers.
If wages had to go up, then its entirely possible that companies like Tesco would hire less people. They're offering secure jobs to unskilled people and then slandered for doing precisely that. Its left-wing dogmatic nonsense. Companies like Tesco's do good work in hiring people that other people won't hire, it isn't unusual to see an employee with learning difficulties or Downs Syndrome etc working there - its an opportunity not exploitation.
So then your argument is that these very poor people on such low wages, should have their tax credits removed but not get a wage rise to compensate?
Well, atleast your honest and aren't trying to disingenuously push the "party of the workers" line.
PT Of the seats Labour picked up from the Tories, Enfield North, Brentford and Isleworth, Ilford North, Ealing Central, Wirral West, Chester, Hove, Dewsbury, Lancaster and Fleetwood, Wolverhampton SW 4/10 were in London. Labour also lost 8 seats to the Tories, not one in London
Exactly Geoff! You can't both preach that we want to give benefits to the poorest in society and then bemoan how much is going to employees of companies that hire large numbers of unskilled workers.
If wages had to go up, then its entirely possible that companies like Tesco would hire less people. They're offering secure jobs to unskilled people and then slandered for doing precisely that. Its left-wing dogmatic nonsense. Companies like Tesco's do good work in hiring people that other people won't hire, it isn't unusual to see an employee with learning difficulties or Downs Syndrome etc working there - its an opportunity not exploitation.
So then your argument is that these very poor people on such low wages, should have their tax credits removed but not get a wage rise to compensate?
Well, atleast your honest and aren't trying to disingenuously push the "party of the workers" line.
I never said that, I said the "subsidise employers" line is nonsense, I never said what the government should do did I?
Personally I think the tax and benefit system needs greatly simplifying. Tax credits under Brown led to at some times a 90% marginal tax rate on the low paid - I oppose that completely. A withdrawal of benefits is no different to tax and so it is abhorrent to me to be net taxing someone upto 100% which Brown did.
I believe in a concept nobody is presently articulating for, a "negative income tax". Unify all income-related taxes and benefits into just a single net payment (from the State to the poor, or the richer to the State). Nobody should be both paying tax and receiving benefits at the same time, that is stupid and means marginally they're doubly punished paying both marginal tax and marginal withdrawal of benefits. The government has made some progress with this on Universal Credit - more needs to be done. I'd like to see Universal Credit, Income Tax, National Insurance and more merged into a single, simple tax/benefit system.
PT Of the seats Labour picked up from the Tories, Enfield North, Brentford and Isleworth, Ilford North, Ealing Central, Wirral West, Chester, Hove, Dewsbury, Lancaster and Fleetwood, Wolverhampton SW 4/10 were in London. Labour also lost 8 seats to the Tories, not one in London
Labour picked up some seats outside of London much deeper into the target list than many of the seats they failed to take in London. Some incredibly marginal London seats they should have taken on normal swing alone actually saw swings away from Labour and to the Tories.
What Labour had to say was popular in certain parts of London but was unpopular in others. Just as what Burnham (who is similar to Miliband) has to say would be popular in certain parts of the North West and unpopular in other parts of the North West.
Exactly Geoff! You can't both preach that we want to give benefits to the poorest in society and then bemoan how much is going to employees of companies that hire large numbers of unskilled workers.
If wages had to go up, then its entirely possible that companies like Tesco would hire less people. They're offering secure jobs to unskilled people and then slandered for doing precisely that. Its left-wing dogmatic nonsense. Companies like Tesco's do good work in hiring people that other people won't hire, it isn't unusual to see an employee with learning difficulties or Downs Syndrome etc working there - its an opportunity not exploitation.
That's an interesting extra point there, Philip. My local Morrisons makes a point of hiring both the physically and mentally disabled in jobs where they can perform a function. It's an initiative by the manager here (disclaimer: a good personal friend of mine) and greatly to the credit of both him and head office. But it is not sustainable if the left decides on prioritising and protecting certain other more favoured sectors of their client state in search of votes.
Burnham or Cooper would be the Labour comfort choice which confirms that they are still not ready to move on from their previous mistakes. I certainly don't fear Burnham, a Labour Health Minister who presided over the Staffordshire scandal. After spending the last five years putting the NHS at the heart of the Labour strategic fight back, how did that work out for Labour or Burnham?
Mortimer Burnham is the most dangerous for the Tories by far and I am no Labour voter, he could win both floaters and hold the core, Kendall may win a few floaters but turn off Scotland, Corbyn is too leftwing for floaters and Cooper has little charisma and has also moved to a more leftwing position. As an Independent poll of the general public this week showed Burnham had a net positive v negative rating of +14%, Kendall +6%, Cooper - 6%, Corbyn -15% it is the public as a whole whose opinion will count at the end of the day, not yours http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
"The BBC Trust will be axed and its powers handed to the communications regulator Ofcom, Westminster sources have revealed. For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter. The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks. It comes after John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, insisted that he does not have a “vendetta” against the corporation but warned that it needed a “very robust system in place” to deal with issues of impartiality"
Not before time!
LOL. They were going to abolish Ofcom before GE 2010, now they are giving Ofcom the BBC.
What's the LOL for? Abolishing something or giving the same thing a new proper role which justifies its continued existence seem like the only two sensible alternatives to choose between.
Because voters were sold "abolish the evil quangos! opposition yay!" before "we have to expand this bureaucracy to improve things", i.e. the oldest trick in the book.
So one quango is abolished and another one dodges being axed by being given a real job. Not exactly the poster-child example of State expansion really.
You know and I know that there will be no difference, just the same work with a new layer of bureaucracy each of whom will be a lot more expensive than a BBC Trustee. Plus there will be a few years of synergy transition change management empowerment, i.e. consultant cash.
PT Wrong on both counts, Labour also won many seats like Ilford North deep on their target list and failed to win seats in the north and Midlands much higher up. Burnham as the poll you have ignored showed leads in both the north and south. He is not like Miliband at all in personality or background and on policy in some areas too
fitalass Labour made the NHS a key part of their campaign in 1992 and 1997 over waiting lists, they lost the former, won a crushing victory on the latter. I have never voted Labour in my life but the polling evidence is clear, Burnham is the most popular Labour choice amongst the public end of conversation, and the most likely to win floating voters, regardless who some pbTories profess to 'fear' (and Kendall's low ratings in Scotland are a problem for her)
Exactly Geoff! You can't both preach that we want to give benefits to the poorest in society and then bemoan how much is going to employees of companies that hire large numbers of unskilled workers.
If wages had to go up, then its entirely possible that companies like Tesco would hire less people. They're offering secure jobs to unskilled people and then slandered for doing precisely that. Its left-wing dogmatic nonsense. Companies like Tesco's do good work in hiring people that other people won't hire, it isn't unusual to see an employee with learning difficulties or Downs Syndrome etc working there - its an opportunity not exploitation.
So then your argument is that these very poor people on such low wages, should have their tax credits removed but not get a wage rise to compensate?
Well, atleast your honest and aren't trying to disingenuously push the "party of the workers" line.
Agreed. There's a reason why people have relied on these tax credits - if they don't receive them, wages need to rise to compensate, certainly in the long-term. I really don't understand the thinking of some Conservatives. Simply taking away benefits does not suddenly mean poverty is history. A range of things need to accompany that, including creating a society of more skilled workers, a more productive economy, increasing wages, and making sure that wealth and opportunities aren't only concentrated in the South of England.
"The BBC Trust will be axed and its powers handed to the communications regulator Ofcom, Westminster sources have revealed. For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter. The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks. It comes after John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, insisted that he does not have a “vendetta” against the corporation but warned that it needed a “very robust system in place” to deal with issues of impartiality"
Not before time!
LOL. They were going to abolish Ofcom before GE 2010, now they are giving Ofcom the BBC.
What's the LOL for? Abolishing something or giving the same thing a new proper role which justifies its continued existence seem like the only two sensible alternatives to choose between.
Because voters were sold "abolish the evil quangos! opposition yay!" before "we have to expand this bureaucracy to improve things", i.e. the oldest trick in the book.
So one quango is abolished and another one dodges being axed by being given a real job. Not exactly the poster-child example of State expansion really.
You know and I know that there will be no difference, just the same work with a new layer of bureaucracy each of whom will be a lot more expensive than a BBC Trustee. Plus there will be a few years of synergy transition change management empowerment, i.e. consultant cash.
Agree with most of that; it would be a lot simpler and more effective to just sell the damn thing off.
Welcome to the BBC. Rape all the children you like, just don't punch a producer.
I wouldn't care at all if it carries on as a bloated lefty circle-jerk and cesspit of trendy liberal groupthink; just as long that I don't have to pay for it any longer under threat of prosecution.
Exactly Geoff! You can't both preach that we want to give benefits to the poorest in society and then bemoan how much is going to employees of companies that hire large numbers of unskilled workers.
If wages had to go up, then its entirely possible that companies like Tesco would hire less people. They're offering secure jobs to unskilled people and then slandered for doing precisely that. Its left-wing dogmatic nonsense. Companies like Tesco's do good work in hiring people that other people won't hire, it isn't unusual to see an employee with learning difficulties or Downs Syndrome etc working there - its an opportunity not exploitation.
That's an interesting extra point there, Philip. My local Morrisons makes a point of hiring both the physically and mentally disabled in jobs where they can perform a function. It's an initiative by the manager here (disclaimer: a good personal friend of mine) and greatly to the credit of both him and head office. But it is not sustainable if the left decides on prioritising and protecting certain other more favoured sectors of their client state in search of votes.
Exactly. Lets not forget too the pledge that anyone working Full Time on NMW will not be paying Income Tax. So any uprating of NMW means an automatic uprating of Income Tax thresholds too.
Presently those on lower earnings are still paying National Insurance (which is not linked to NI "contributions" for pensions etc despite common belief, that's what QI would call General Ignorance and set off the claxon). I'd like to see simplifications made including raising the threshold NI is paid at to the same as Income Tax and merging the two. This would be a tax cut to everyone who is working above the NI charges threshold and could be done as part of a package of reforms including changes to Universal Credit/Tax Credits. As I said above I'd like ultimately to see Universal Credit, Income Tax and National Insurance all to be merged together and that would incentivise work by removing the triple whammy of paying more tax and more NI and losing benefits at the same time as a result of working more hours.
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
The conservative case for tax credits (as opposed to the simple "help the poor" argument) is essentially that they make it worth working - before they were introduced, the marginal tax rate as you left the benefits system was sometimes over 100% (the "poverty trap"). Brown felt that a big jump in the minimum wage was unwise as it did risk employers shedding labour, and that it made more sense to use some of the money we'd otherwise be paying people to do nothing on JSA as a subsidy for low-wage jobs. Personally I think it's a good argument, though I agree it's cumbersome.
Of course, the ultra-conservative "solution" to the poverty trap is to slash basic survival benefits like JSA, so that even a rubbish wage is better because otherwise you're really on the breadline. That's not up to now been thought desirable by any of the mahjor parties.
PT Wrong on both counts, Labour also won many seats like Ilford North deep on their target list and failed to win seats in the north and Midlands much higher up. Burnham as the poll you have ignored showed leads in both the north and south. He is not like Miliband at all in personality or background and on policy in some areas too
I didn't ignore it, I responded to it and called it irrelevant. Burnham, like Miliband, could succeed in increasing majorities in safe Labour seats in the NW while losing marginal seats to the Tories. There is no evidence to the contrary.
I suspect Kendall would win more marginal seats in the NW than Miliband/Burnham. Though you're right, Burnham is a weak version of Miliband Lite, he's not the full strength of Miliband which is why he came fourth behind the leader who produced what Burnham called "the best manifesto I've stood on".
Exactly Geoff! You can't both preach that we want to give benefits to the poorest in society and then bemoan how much is going to employees of companies that hire large numbers of unskilled workers.
If wages had to go up, then its entirely possible that companies like Tesco would hire less people. They're offering secure jobs to unskilled people and then slandered for doing precisely that. Its left-wing dogmatic nonsense. Companies like Tesco's do good work in hiring people that other people won't hire, it isn't unusual to see an employee with learning difficulties or Downs Syndrome etc working there - its an opportunity not exploitation.
So then your argument is that these very poor people on such low wages, should have their tax credits removed but not get a wage rise to compensate?
Well, atleast your honest and aren't trying to disingenuously push the "party of the workers" line.
Agreed. There's a reason why people have relied on these tax credits - if they don't receive them, wages need to rise to compensate, certainly in the long-term. I really don't understand the thinking of some Conservatives. Simply taking away benefits does not suddenly mean poverty is history. A range of things need to accompany that, including creating a society of more skilled workers, a more productive economy, increasing wages, and making sure that wealth and opportunities aren't only concentrated in the South of England.
While simply giving people benefits so they get to "60% of average wages plus £1" doesn't do anything but fudge the figures either.
Tory reforms have led to the highest record of employment this nation has ever had. That is success and 2 million more people today in work than there were in 2010. That is the kind of reform we need to continue.
Of course, the ultra-conservative "solution" to the poverty trap is to slash basic survival benefits like JSA, so that even a rubbish wage is better because otherwise you're really on the breadline. That's not up to now been thought desirable by any of the mahjor parties.
Don't be dishonest Nick, its still not considered desirable by any of the major parties. We're not seeing "slashes" to it, but we have seen the poverty trap issue getting addressed and that needs to continue. It can not be right for real marginal rates (including all taxes and benefits withdrawal) to be high, work needs to pay at all levels.
PT You called it irrelevant because you dislike its findings, but facts are facts. Miliband did not increase majorities in all Labour northern safe seats, Middlesborough saw a 2% swing to UKIP, Barnsley 4% Labour to UKIP etc and Burnham would be more likely to win over some of those Labour voters than Miliband. Miliband did actually win a few northern marginals like Chester and Wirral West. The evidence to the contrary you are blatantly ignoring is the fact Ed Miliband trailed badly in 2010 Labour leadership polls behind David Miliband while Andy Burnham has a clear lead in 2015 leadership polls
Kendall was second favourite in that Independent poll I showed but she also trailed badly in Scotland and could lose Labour's core, also a risk had the Tories picked Ken Clarke for example. Burnham has said Labour spent too much, has said the Mansion Tax was wrong, has said Labour needs to ensure work pays more than welfare and it needs to recognise immigration concerns, the fact he has not disowned the 2015 manifesto is neither here nor there, Blair did not disown Kinnock's 1992 manifesto completely in 1997 either
You are a big fan of tax credits, aren't you? Honest question, do you not think it would be better to reduce the size of the state, grow the private sector and observe natural wage growth than top up the salaries of the low paid with an inefficient tax system...
The conservative case for tax credits (as opposed to the simple "help the poor" argument) is essentially that they make it worth working - before they were introduced, the marginal tax rate as you left the benefits system was sometimes over 100% (the "poverty trap"). Brown felt that a big jump in the minimum wage was unwise as it did risk employers shedding labour, and that it made more sense to use some of the money we'd otherwise be paying people to do nothing on JSA as a subsidy for low-wage jobs. Personally I think it's a good argument, though I agree it's cumbersome.
Of course, the ultra-conservative "solution" to the poverty trap is to slash basic survival benefits like JSA, so that even a rubbish wage is better because otherwise you're really on the breadline. That's not up to now been thought desirable by any of the mahjor parties.
There are some other solutions like universal basic income or negative income tax which ought to be appealing to Conservatives (and have some heavyweight support among economists) but only the Green party seems headed in that direction at the moment. As Philip Thompson points out, there is a makeable Conservative case for it, and it would also get rid of the welfare trap. As PT says, when you include withdrawal rates from various income-contingent benefits, the effective marginal tax rates for low-paid people can be horrendous and the fact that so many things are means-tested actually comes back to bite very hard. (I've known people in the past consider early retirement because they had a lot of kids coming up to university, and the various grants/bursaries/student support available to 18 year olds coming from a low-income household added up to something very substantial... so this isn't even just about tax credits.)
Of course, the ultra-conservative "solution" to the poverty trap is to slash basic survival benefits like JSA, so that even a rubbish wage is better because otherwise you're really on the breadline. That's not up to now been thought desirable by any of the mahjor parties.
Don't be dishonest Nick, its still not considered desirable by any of the major parties. We're not seeing "slashes" to it, but we have seen the poverty trap issue getting addressed and that needs to continue. It can not be right for real marginal rates (including all taxes and benefits withdrawal) to be high, work needs to pay at all levels.
Yet you are advocating low-paid workers having less to live on.
Of course, the ultra-conservative "solution" to the poverty trap is to slash basic survival benefits like JSA, so that even a rubbish wage is better because otherwise you're really on the breadline. That's not up to now been thought desirable by any of the mahjor parties.
That's exactly where the PB tea party are headed though.
Of course, the ultra-conservative "solution" to the poverty trap is to slash basic survival benefits like JSA, so that even a rubbish wage is better because otherwise you're really on the breadline. That's not up to now been thought desirable by any of the mahjor parties.
That's exactly where the PB tea party are headed though.
PT You called it irrelevant because you dislike its findings, but facts are facts. Miliband did not increase majorities in all Labour northern safe seats, Middlesborough saw a 2% swing to UKIP, Barnsley 4% Labour to UKIP etc and Burnham would be more likely to win over some of those Labour voters than Miliband. Miliband did actually win a few northern marginals like Chester and Wirral West. The evidence to the contrary you are blatantly ignoring is the fact Ed Miliband trailed badly in 2010 Labour leadership polls behind David Miliband while Andy Burnham has a clear lead in 2015 leadership polls
Kendall was second favourite in that Independent poll I showed but she also trailed badly in Scotland and could lose Labour's core, also a risk had the Tories picked Ken Clarke for example. Burnham has said Labour spent too much, has said the Mansion Tax was wrong, has said Labour needs to ensure work pays more than welfare and it needs to recognise immigration concerns, the fact he has not disowned the 2015 manifesto is neither here nor there, Blair did not disown Kinnock's 1992 manifesto completely in 1997 either
I know Miliband didn't increase majorities in all Labour northern safe seats, any more than he increased them in all Labour London safe seats either. Miliband's manifesto (Burnhams' "greatest ever") appealed to many safe Labour seats though like Leigh while repelling the very marginal voters that Labour needed to win.
If Burnham repeats the "greatest ever" manifesto with himself fronting it then it will be just as repellant to NW marginal voters as it was this time. What appeals to NW marginal voters is closer to what appeals to East Midlands marginal voters than it is to what appeals to safe seat Leigh voters. Burnham could turn around and ditch what he's been supporting and succeed, but I doubt it.
Blair did not call Kinnock's manifesto the greatest ever either. Burnham has been forced to create more distance to win the battle he's in now. If he wins then it depends upon what he does afterwards, if he continues to appeal to safe Labour voters he'll win safe Labour voters - and lose. If he appeals to marginal voters he'll win marginals and not just in the NW but the midlands too.
Of course, the ultra-conservative "solution" to the poverty trap is to slash basic survival benefits like JSA, so that even a rubbish wage is better because otherwise you're really on the breadline. That's not up to now been thought desirable by any of the mahjor parties.
Don't be dishonest Nick, its still not considered desirable by any of the major parties. We're not seeing "slashes" to it, but we have seen the poverty trap issue getting addressed and that needs to continue. It can not be right for real marginal rates (including all taxes and benefits withdrawal) to be high, work needs to pay at all levels.
Yet you are advocating low-paid workers having less to live on.
No I'm not. I wrote a long post to you about what I'm personally advocating which is considered changes regarding National Insurance, Income Tax, Universal Credit etc
Nice to see you totally ignored all that and just threw this mud instead. I'm in favour of eliminating the poverty trap, making work pay and getting people to ultimately have more to live on. I guess the long post flew over your head, so I hope a small one can be digested by you.
While simply giving people benefits so they get to "60% of average wages plus £1" doesn't do anything but fudge the figures either.
Tory reforms have led to the highest record of employment this nation has ever had. That is success and 2 million more people today in work than there were in 2010. That is the kind of reform we need to continue.
Tory reforms have still had the majority of growth concentrated in the South of England and poor productivity, as well as wage depression continuing. We don't need just any kind of jobs, we need jobs which can actually pay people a living wage, where they can live decent lives. As you can see from my previous post, I wasn't advocating benefits as a solution to poverty - they simply help alleviate people from the worst symptoms - but simply saying benefit withdrawal by itself does not solve the situation. As we can see with homelessness increasing, and many children still in child poverty in this country.
PT Well it actually appealed more to middle class marginals like Chester and Wirral West Labour won than the likes of Barnsley and Middlesborough. The fact there were some good things in the manifesto Burnham liked does not mean he has not showed himself prepared to move away where necessary as he has done on the deficit, on the need to understand concerns on immigration, on the need to ensure work pays more than welfare, on the error of the Mansion Tax etc. Burnham's victory in Leigh was largely down to his personal appeal than Miliband's campaign anyway
Blair, unlike Kendall, understood you need to take your party with you too which is why he paid tribute to Kinnock even on his victory speech in 1997, he then reached outwards. Yet Labour do not need to go as far as Blair did and win a majority of 160 they just need to win back some of the floating voters who voted for Labour from 1997-2005 and also hold some of the voters who left Labour from 2005-2010 for the LDs and Greens before returning and regain some of the voters who left Labour for the SNP in 2015
While simply giving people benefits so they get to "60% of average wages plus £1" doesn't do anything but fudge the figures either.
Tory reforms have led to the highest record of employment this nation has ever had. That is success and 2 million more people today in work than there were in 2010. That is the kind of reform we need to continue.
Tory reforms have still had the majority of growth concentrated in the South of England and poor productivity, as well as wage depression continuing. We don't need just any kind of jobs, we need jobs which can actually pay people a living wage, where they can live decent lives. As you can see from my previous post, I wasn't advocating benefits as a solution to poverty - they simply help alleviate people from the worst symptoms - but simply saying benefit withdrawal by itself does not solve the situation. As we can see with homelessness increasing, and many children still in child poverty in this country.
Your aspersions on "any kind of jobs" is a depressing attitude that has led in the past to many families living long-term unemployed. Actually from long-term unemployment "any kind of job" is an improvement. Far better to have a job stacking shelves in Tesco than no job ever and slandering the companies that provide these jobs and hire unskilled long-term unemployed is not a solution. Boosting skills is good but is a very long-term task, the people who left school at 16 decades ago are not going to go back to school now. We need to combine long-term reforms like are happening with the education department initially under Gove with immediate reforms to make work pay.
We have seen long-term unemployment fall and despite all the reforms to benefits that have been made we have not seen child poverty rise despite all the shouts about "bedroom tax" and other nonsense over the last five years.
@HYUFD exactly - what lets Kendall down is her inability to understand that you must take your party with you. That fundamental misunderstanding will be her downfall.
Of course, the ultra-conservative "solution" to the poverty trap is to slash basic survival benefits like JSA, so that even a rubbish wage is better because otherwise you're really on the breadline. That's not up to now been thought desirable by any of the mahjor parties.
Don't be dishonest Nick, its still not considered desirable by any of the major parties. We're not seeing "slashes" to it, but we have seen the poverty trap issue getting addressed and that needs to continue. It can not be right for real marginal rates (including all taxes and benefits withdrawal) to be high, work needs to pay at all levels.
I don't think Nick was being dishonest, I thought his post was very measured as a look at pros and cons. Unless I misread him, I don't think he is accusing the current government of wanting to slash benefits to the bone so that more people feel the pressure of the breadline. My reading is based on "that's" rather than "that had", suggesting that still no party thinks of it as desirable. (I can't see any party proposing anything like that in the foreseeable future, either, but that's by the by.)
The marginal rates argument is a very strong one in my opinion. Incentives matter, and if they end up misaligned then that's seriously bad news.
PT Well it actually appealed more to middle class marginals like Chester and Wirral West Labour won than the likes of Barnsley and Middlesborough.
You cherrypick a couple of marginals that changed hands while ignoring the plethora of marginals that didn't or that went the other way like Morley and Outwood. Cherrypicking is meaningless, if it had appealed to middle class marginals then we'd be discussing the Tory leadership election and Miliband would be PM.
TheApaclypse Indeed and Cameron too understood the need to get Hague and IDS on board as well as reaching out to floating voters. Kendall is at risk of thinking to way to win is throw every Labour policy out the window and swallow the 2015 Tory manifesto, yet as John Howard famously said (and while no leftwinger he knew how to win elections) you first consolidate your base then you build outward from there
@HYUFD exactly - what lets Kendall down is her inability to understand that you must take your party with you. That fundamental misunderstanding will be her downfall.
It will be the downfall of her party if it isn't willing to be taken to an election winning position. This is why the Tories lost three elections in a row and Labour lost four in a row last time - each time it was because they weren't willing to move to the centre ground. If Labour after its second defeat is not willing to go with Kendall to the centre, then it may after its third defeat.
Of course, the ultra-conservative "solution" to the poverty trap is to slash basic survival benefits like JSA, so that even a rubbish wage is better because otherwise you're really on the breadline. That's not up to now been thought desirable by any of the mahjor parties.
Don't be dishonest Nick, its still not considered desirable by any of the major parties. We're not seeing "slashes" to it, but we have seen the poverty trap issue getting addressed and that needs to continue. It can not be right for real marginal rates (including all taxes and benefits withdrawal) to be high, work needs to pay at all levels.
I don't think Nick was being dishonest, I thought his post was very measured as a look at pros and cons. Unless I misread him, I don't think he is accusing the current government of wanting to slash benefits to the bone so that more people feel the pressure of the breadline. My reading is based on "that's" rather than "that had", suggesting that still no party thinks of it as desirable. (I can't see any party proposing anything like that in the foreseeable future, either, but that's by the by.)
The marginal rates argument is a very strong one in my opinion. Incentives matter, and if they end up misaligned then that's seriously bad news.
Apologies to Nick if I misread him but it was the line "that's not up to now been thought desirable" seemed to me to imply he was saying that now the Tories were thinking that was desirable. I apologise if that was my mistake and that wasn't what you meant.
Your aspersions on "any kind of jobs" is a depressing attitude that has led in the past to many families living long-term unemployed. Actually from long-term unemployment "any kind of job" is an improvement. Far better to have a job stacking shelves in Tesco than no job ever and slandering the companies that provide these jobs and hire unskilled long-term unemployed is not a solution. Boosting skills is good but is a very long-term task, the people who left school at 16 decades ago are not going to go back to school now. We need to combine long-term reforms like are happening with the education department initially under Gove with immediate reforms to make work pay.
We have seen long-term unemployment fall and despite all the reforms to benefits that have been made we have not seen child poverty rise despite all the shouts about "bedroom tax" and other nonsense over the last five years.
My aspersions on 'any-kind of jobs' have certainly not led to long-term unemployment. My aspersions refer to that that as a society will not develop, and grow with low-skill, low-wage jobs. We need skilled, high-wage jobs in the long-term - and while stacking Tesco shelves may be a great starting point, fundamentally it should not be the end-point. My point, was that many of these low-skill jobs will not be paying great wages - and that is the key. Poverty in this country is a complex problem that requires many solutions, but a better wage is key. Simply withdrawing benefits and a low-wage job does not suddenly decrease poverty rates if people are still struggling to put food on the table and pay the bills.
The fact is child-poverty is still at a significance rate in this country - surely, the aim of any government is to reduce child poverty. It should not be a cause of celebration that we still have child poverty in this country. And despite all the nonsense about the bedroom tax et al, we have had homelessness increase in this country.
@HYUFD exactly - what lets Kendall down is her inability to understand that you must take your party with you. That fundamental misunderstanding will be her downfall.
It will be the downfall of her party if it isn't willing to be taken to an election winning position. This is why the Tories lost three elections in a row and Labour lost four in a row last time - each time it was because they weren't willing to move to the centre ground. If Labour after its second defeat is not willing to go with Kendall to the centre, then it may after its third defeat.
It's questionable whether Kendall offers an election winning position. I was once someone who supported her bid to be leader, but so far Kendall has seemed to offer at times a carbon copy of Cameron's Conservatism. If the public have a choice between Conservative-Lite and Conservative, they'll probably vote for the real thing. Tony Blair, to his credit in the years 1994-97, did not merely mimic John Major, and even Thatcher. He did triangulation very well - so well it puts Kendall to shame, in her inadequacy to be able to do successfully. Labour have to trust that Kendall may grow into the job, but she certainly isn't a guaranteed election winner simply because many Tories like her. Many Tories also liked Jim Murphy, and he led Labour to complete obliteration in Scotland.
TheApaclypse Indeed and Cameron too understood the need to get Hague and IDS on board as well as reaching out to floating voters. Kendall is at risk of thinking to way to win is throw every Labour policy out the window and swallow the 2015 Tory manifesto, yet as John Howard famously said (and while no leftwinger he knew how to win elections) you first consolidate your base then you build outward from there
Agreed. I fear with Kendall that over the next five years she'll simply end up agreeing with everything the government do. We do need an opposition, and Labour need to have a clear voice in 2020.
PT There is no point going to the centre if you lose your base to the Greens, UKIP, the SNP etc in the process. That was the danger had the Tories elected Ken Clarke as their leader, they would have moved to the centre but risked losing rightwing voters to UKIP. Even Blair by 2005 was losing voters to his leftflank to the LDs and Respect as the Tories in 1997 lost voters to the Referendum Party. Successful parties both hold their core vote AND then win over floating voters in the middle
My aspersions on 'any-kind of jobs' have certainly not led to long-term unemployment. My aspersions refer to that that as a society will not develop, and grow with low-skill, low-wage jobs. We need skilled, high-wage jobs in the long-term - and while stacking Tesco shelves may be a great starting point, fundamentally it should not be the end-point. My point, was that many of these low-skill jobs will not be paying great wages - and that is the key. Poverty in this country is a complex problem that requires many solutions, but a better wage is key. Simply withdrawing benefits and a low-wage job does not suddenly decrease poverty rates if people are still struggling to put food on the table and pay the bills.
The fact is child-poverty is still at a significance rate in this country - surely, the aim of any government is to reduce child poverty. It should not be a cause of celebration that we still have child poverty in this country. And despite all the nonsense about the bedroom tax et al, we have had homelessness increase in this country.
Considering that we inherited a deficit almost on the same scale as Greece, the fact our reforms have seen a slight decrease or no change in child poverty depending upon the metric is good news. In Greece the line where we would draw child poverty at would see almost the entire country beneath it now. That is a nation that has had real austerity unlike us as the issues of the deficit and debt were put off until it couldn't be delayed any longer, as we were heading towards until this government (previously with the Lib Dems) saved us from that course.
Yes we do need skills, but that is an issue more for the education system than the tax system. What the tax system can do is both assist in getting people into work and then while in work making transitions smoother. Dealing with the difficulties that tax credit cause is a key issue with that.
And I have seen from the workplace side just how much of a disincentive tax credits can be. I work as an employer and regularly have been able to offer more work to people who were initially hired as part time but that work has been refused by people on tax credits as they view themselves as "not allowed" to work more than 16 hours, as if they worked more hours they'd lose their benefits. Not only would they lose some benefits but risk being fined if they took overtime without informing the benefits agencies etc. This destroys flexibility and leads to those not on tax credits being able to take up extra work while those who are struggle to do so and end up with less wages. That is a failure of the system that should be addressed.
PT Chester and Wirral West are 2 of the wealthiest and most middle class constituencies in the north and have well above average incomes on a national basis too. The likes of Morley and Outward are more likely to be won by Burnham, from a lower middle class/working class northern background, than they were by Ed Miliband from a north London intelligentsia background
PT There is no point going to the centre if you lose your base to the Greens, UKIP, the SNP etc in the process. That was the danger had the Tories elected Ken Clarke as their leader, they would have moved to the centre but risked losing rightwing voters to UKIP. Even Blair by 2005 was losing voters to his leftflank to the LDs and Respect as the Tories in 1997 lost voters to the Referendum Party. Successful parties both hold their core vote AND then win over floating voters in the middle
Indeed, that is the challenge that Labour face today. In 1994, thanks to the work of Kinnock and Smith Labour had consolidated its base. Then, it was simply left to Blair to appeal to voters in the middle. Likewise, by 2005 the Tory base was also consolidated, with Cameron needing to only appeal to floating voters. In 2015, Labour need to secure its base in the North East, recapture at least some seats in Scotland, while attracting voters in the South and the Midlands. It is a huge task, and requires thinking beyond simply how to get middle England voters.
PT There is no point going to the centre if you lose your base to the Greens, UKIP, the SNP etc in the process. That was the danger had the Tories elected Ken Clarke as their leader, they would have moved to the centre but risked losing rightwing voters to UKIP. Even Blair by 2005 was losing voters to his leftflank to the LDs and Respect as the Tories in 1997 lost voters to the Referendum Party. Successful parties both hold their core vote AND then win over floating voters in the middle
That explains why Cameron lost the election this year while Farage swept to dozens of victories in seats vacated by the Tories. Thanks, I had been wondering why we now had Miliband in PM with Farage in Westminster.
PT There is no point going to the centre if you lose your base to the Greens, UKIP, the SNP etc in the process. That was the danger had the Tories elected Ken Clarke as their leader, they would have moved to the centre but risked losing rightwing voters to UKIP. Even Blair by 2005 was losing voters to his leftflank to the LDs and Respect as the Tories in 1997 lost voters to the Referendum Party. Successful parties both hold their core vote AND then win over floating voters in the middle
Indeed, that is the challenge that Labour face today. In 1994, thanks to the work of Kinnock and Smith Labour had consolidated its base. Then, it was simply left to Blair to appeal to voters in the middle. Likewise, by 2005 the Tory base was also consolidated, with Cameron needing to only appeal to floating voters. In 2015, Labour need to secure its base in the North East, recapture at least some seats in Scotland, while attracting voters in the South and the Midlands. It is a huge task, and requires thinking beyond simply how to get middle England voters.
So what you are suggesting is that this leader needs to consolidate their power and then lose in 2020 and be replaced by a potential winner as the base has been consolidated this time?
PT There is no point going to the centre if you lose your base to the Greens, UKIP, the SNP etc in the process. That was the danger had the Tories elected Ken Clarke as their leader, they would have moved to the centre but risked losing rightwing voters to UKIP. Even Blair by 2005 was losing voters to his leftflank to the LDs and Respect as the Tories in 1997 lost voters to the Referendum Party. Successful parties both hold their core vote AND then win over floating voters in the middle
That explains why Cameron lost the election this year while Farage swept to dozens of victories in seats vacated by the Tories. Thanks, I had been wondering why we now had Miliband in PM with Farage in Westminster.
Cameron proves the point - he won precisely because he shored up his base over the previous 12 months (especially old people with the various bribes) and despite being seen by the public as less centrist than Miliband.
Considering that we inherited a deficit almost on the same scale as Greece, the fact our reforms have seen a slight decrease or no change in child poverty depending upon the metric is good news. In Greece the line where we would draw child poverty at would see almost the entire country beneath it now. That is a nation that has had real austerity unlike us as the issues of the deficit and debt were put off until it couldn't be delayed any longer, as we were heading towards until this government (previously with the Lib Dems) saved us from that course.
Yes we do need skills, but that is an issue more for the education system than the tax system. What the tax system can do is both assist in getting people into work and then while in work making transitions smoother. Dealing with the difficulties that tax credit cause is a key issue with that.
And I have seen from the workplace side just how much of a disincentive tax credits can be. I work as an employer and regularly have been able to offer more work to people who were initially hired as part time but that work has been refused by people on tax credits as they view themselves as "not allowed" to work more than 16 hours, as if they worked more hours they'd lose their benefits. Not only would they lose some benefits but risk being fined if they took overtime without informing the benefits agencies etc. This destroys flexibility and leads to those not on tax credits being able to take up extra work while those who are struggle to do so and end up with less wages. That is a failure of the system that should be addressed.
Our situation was never as bad as Greece - we were never in danger of having the IMF etc come in - even if Labour had been re-elected. Osborne did not even meet his own deficit targets - he met Labour's targets under Alstair Darling, and yet strangely the whole world did not collapse. So no, given that Conservative welfare reforms are aimed at a new way of tackling poverty, that child poverty is still significant is not a good thing.
As for your point on the education system - yes skills are an issue for the education system, that's my whole point. That you need a range of measures to tackle poverty alongside welfare reform. And even then you need to create a situation where the withdrawal of benefits are mitigated - whether it is by increasing the personal allowance, or by increasing the minimum wage. The reform of the tax system is short-term - long term issues which will solve the poverty issue are cent red on public service and economic reform.
As for your last point - well I haven't denied that the system needs reform, simply that withdrawing benefits in itself isn't a solution. Welfare reform needs to be accompanied with other measures.
PT There is no point going to the centre if you lose your base to the Greens, UKIP, the SNP etc in the process. That was the danger had the Tories elected Ken Clarke as their leader, they would have moved to the centre but risked losing rightwing voters to UKIP. Even Blair by 2005 was losing voters to his leftflank to the LDs and Respect as the Tories in 1997 lost voters to the Referendum Party. Successful parties both hold their core vote AND then win over floating voters in the middle
Indeed, that is the challenge that Labour face today. In 1994, thanks to the work of Kinnock and Smith Labour had consolidated its base. Then, it was simply left to Blair to appeal to voters in the middle. Likewise, by 2005 the Tory base was also consolidated, with Cameron needing to only appeal to floating voters. In 2015, Labour need to secure its base in the North East, recapture at least some seats in Scotland, while attracting voters in the South and the Midlands. It is a huge task, and requires thinking beyond simply how to get middle England voters.
So what you are suggesting is that this leader needs to consolidate their power and then lose in 2020 and be replaced by a potential winner as the base has been consolidated this time?
Ideally, I'd like a leader that can consolidate the base while also winning floaters. Given that we are in for a potentially rocky five years, there is a possibility that could happen.
Danny565 Cameron shored up his base on inheritance tax cuts and the EU referendum and welfare cuts, polls differ on whether he was seen as more centrist but he had run on the more centrist platform in the 2005 Tory leadership race while Ed Miliband had run on the more leftwing platform in 2010, but Cameron was willing to throw his base red meat when needed
PT There is no point going to the centre if you lose your base to the Greens, UKIP, the SNP etc in the process. That was the danger had the Tories elected Ken Clarke as their leader, they would have moved to the centre but risked losing rightwing voters to UKIP. Even Blair by 2005 was losing voters to his leftflank to the LDs and Respect as the Tories in 1997 lost voters to the Referendum Party. Successful parties both hold their core vote AND then win over floating voters in the middle
That explains why Cameron lost the election this year while Farage swept to dozens of victories in seats vacated by the Tories. Thanks, I had been wondering why we now had Miliband in PM with Farage in Westminster.
Cameron proves the point - he won precisely because he shored up his base over the previous 12 months (especially old people with the various bribes) and despite being seen by the public as less centrist than Miliband.
Cameron became PM as a centrist and remained PM much closer to the centre than the Party. Though he has the advantage of incumbency. The powers of office and incumbency can help move the centre, very rarely do opposition leaders win besides either from the centre or against a very discredited government.
Welfare reform so far has been reforms in a package of measures not just a withdrawal of welfare. Reforms like Universal Credit and raising the tax threshold have been done as part of a package of reforms to address problems like the poverty trap and the ridiculously high real marginal tax rate of taxes plus loss of benefits that previously existed.
Future changes do need to come in a package too. Given the history of the last five years I expect they will be. I seriously hope the end goal is a system where the real marginal tax rate for those on benefits is low, which means ending a plethora of means tested benefits and taxes and having a simpler system instead.
PT There is no point going to the centre if you lose your base to the Greens, UKIP, the SNP etc in the process. That was the danger had the Tories elected Ken Clarke as their leader, they would have moved to the centre but risked losing rightwing voters to UKIP. Even Blair by 2005 was losing voters to his leftflank to the LDs and Respect as the Tories in 1997 lost voters to the Referendum Party. Successful parties both hold their core vote AND then win over floating voters in the middle
That explains why Cameron lost the election this year while Farage swept to dozens of victories in seats vacated by the Tories. Thanks, I had been wondering why we now had Miliband in PM with Farage in Westminster.
Cameron proves the point - he won precisely because he shored up his base over the previous 12 months (especially old people with the various bribes) and despite being seen by the public as less centrist than Miliband.
Cameron became PM as a centrist and remained PM much closer to the centre than the Party. Though he has the advantage of incumbency. The powers of office and incumbency can help move the centre, very rarely do opposition leaders win besides either from the centre or against a very discredited government.
Even in 2010, the polls showed Cameron was seen by the public as quite right-wing (though not as much as in 2015).
In 2010 Cameron was seen as far more centrist than any of his predecessors but even he might have lost in 2007 had Brown called the Election That Never Was. Instead by 2010 he was fighting against a discredited government but even then yes Cameron and his Party probably missed out on a majority because they were too far from the then centre.
PT In any case Corbyn, and I would also argue Cooper, are left of Burnham anyway. Ken Clarke was actually the most 'centrist' candidate in the 2005 Tory race, though Fox and Davis were right of Cameron
PT In any case Corbyn, and I would also argue Cooper, are left of Burnham anyway. Ken Clarke was actually the most 'centrist' candidate in the 2005 Tory race, though Fox and Davis were right of Cameron
Diane Abbott is to the left of Burnham doesn't make him a good candidate.
PT So was Ed Miliband and Ed Balls on most issues, he was in fact promoted by Blair. He leads in the polls as the voters favoured choice as Cameron did and Blair did in their leadership contests
Polls currently are meaningless name recognition. Cameron took his lead in the polls after his Party Conference speech before the election. Idiotically Labour are holding their vote before Conference preventing anyone like Cameron making a mark.
PT No they are not name recognition, David Miliband led in 2010 but Labour picked Ed Miliband and we all know what happened then. On net favourability, less prone to name recognition, Burnham is on +14%, ahead of Kendall on +6%, Cooper and Corbyn are both negative
Tories in 2001 ended up with IDS that is not something to repeat. The 2005 timeframe was a success. Labour have cut odd debate before it starts so polls are irrelevant name recognition currently.
PT The Tories had a similar conference 'idol' speech competition in 1963 when Butler did not make a good speech and Home ended up leader, had Butler won the leadership he may well have beaten Wilson in 1964, the best speechmaker is not always the most electable, Powell may well have won on that score or Kinnock or Nye Bevan
There was actually a BBC leader's debate a week ago and more to come
It's fascinating to read your interest in Labour policies, leadership, election results given you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Quite bizarre. Been weeks now, day after day, night after night...
felix I was actually chairman of Warwick University Tories at university, I have never said I will vote for Burnham, I normally vote Tory and occasionally LD, but this is a politicalbetting site and who I think is more electable is a different matter to what my ideological views are
There was a deferred election in Seaford held yesterday. There were 4 seats up for election due also to a death. The result must have been a nightmare for the party polling agents! UKIP 331, Con 320, Ind 313, Con 307, Con 304,LD 302, UKIP 291,LD 283, LD 281, UKIP 279,LD 277, UKIP 259, Ind 252, Con 246, Ind 217, Ind 194, Lab 84, Lab 74.
Comments
LAB 37.9
LDEM 30.1
GRN 22.0
Con 10.0
UKIP 0
London is no more homogenous than the North West.
They spun some out of context numbers here: citizensuk.org/subsidy_report
Useful idiots at the Guardian and the Sunday Times reprinted it and it gets regurgitated as "fact" every now and then.
Not exactly the poster-child example of State expansion really.
If wages had to go up, then its entirely possible that companies like Tesco would hire less people. They're offering secure jobs to unskilled people and then slandered for doing precisely that. Its left-wing dogmatic nonsense. Companies like Tesco's do good work in hiring people that other people won't hire, it isn't unusual to see an employee with learning difficulties or Downs Syndrome etc working there - its an opportunity not exploitation.
Are you making a prediction there Sunil?
Well, atleast your honest and aren't trying to disingenuously push the "party of the workers" line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Personally I think the tax and benefit system needs greatly simplifying. Tax credits under Brown led to at some times a 90% marginal tax rate on the low paid - I oppose that completely. A withdrawal of benefits is no different to tax and so it is abhorrent to me to be net taxing someone upto 100% which Brown did.
I believe in a concept nobody is presently articulating for, a "negative income tax". Unify all income-related taxes and benefits into just a single net payment (from the State to the poor, or the richer to the State). Nobody should be both paying tax and receiving benefits at the same time, that is stupid and means marginally they're doubly punished paying both marginal tax and marginal withdrawal of benefits. The government has made some progress with this on Universal Credit - more needs to be done. I'd like to see Universal Credit, Income Tax, National Insurance and more merged into a single, simple tax/benefit system.
What Labour had to say was popular in certain parts of London but was unpopular in others. Just as what Burnham (who is similar to Miliband) has to say would be popular in certain parts of the North West and unpopular in other parts of the North West.
OK how about?
AICIPM
JICIPM
LICIPM
YICIPM
Welcome to the BBC. Rape all the children you like, just don't punch a producer.
I wouldn't care at all if it carries on as a bloated lefty circle-jerk and cesspit of trendy liberal groupthink; just as long that I don't have to pay for it any longer under threat of prosecution.
Presently those on lower earnings are still paying National Insurance (which is not linked to NI "contributions" for pensions etc despite common belief, that's what QI would call General Ignorance and set off the claxon). I'd like to see simplifications made including raising the threshold NI is paid at to the same as Income Tax and merging the two. This would be a tax cut to everyone who is working above the NI charges threshold and could be done as part of a package of reforms including changes to Universal Credit/Tax Credits. As I said above I'd like ultimately to see Universal Credit, Income Tax and National Insurance all to be merged together and that would incentivise work by removing the triple whammy of paying more tax and more NI and losing benefits at the same time as a result of working more hours.
Of course, the ultra-conservative "solution" to the poverty trap is to slash basic survival benefits like JSA, so that even a rubbish wage is better because otherwise you're really on the breadline. That's not up to now been thought desirable by any of the mahjor parties.
I suspect Kendall would win more marginal seats in the NW than Miliband/Burnham. Though you're right, Burnham is a weak version of Miliband Lite, he's not the full strength of Miliband which is why he came fourth behind the leader who produced what Burnham called "the best manifesto I've stood on".
Tory reforms have led to the highest record of employment this nation has ever had. That is success and 2 million more people today in work than there were in 2010. That is the kind of reform we need to continue.
Kendall was second favourite in that Independent poll I showed but she also trailed badly in Scotland and could lose Labour's core, also a risk had the Tories picked Ken Clarke for example. Burnham has said Labour spent too much, has said the Mansion Tax was wrong, has said Labour needs to ensure work pays more than welfare and it needs to recognise immigration concerns, the fact he has not disowned the 2015 manifesto is neither here nor there, Blair did not disown Kinnock's 1992 manifesto completely in 1997 either
If Burnham repeats the "greatest ever" manifesto with himself fronting it then it will be just as repellant to NW marginal voters as it was this time. What appeals to NW marginal voters is closer to what appeals to East Midlands marginal voters than it is to what appeals to safe seat Leigh voters. Burnham could turn around and ditch what he's been supporting and succeed, but I doubt it.
Blair did not call Kinnock's manifesto the greatest ever either. Burnham has been forced to create more distance to win the battle he's in now. If he wins then it depends upon what he does afterwards, if he continues to appeal to safe Labour voters he'll win safe Labour voters - and lose. If he appeals to marginal voters he'll win marginals and not just in the NW but the midlands too.
Nice to see you totally ignored all that and just threw this mud instead. I'm in favour of eliminating the poverty trap, making work pay and getting people to ultimately have more to live on. I guess the long post flew over your head, so I hope a small one can be digested by you.
Blair, unlike Kendall, understood you need to take your party with you too which is why he paid tribute to Kinnock even on his victory speech in 1997, he then reached outwards. Yet Labour do not need to go as far as Blair did and win a majority of 160 they just need to win back some of the floating voters who voted for Labour from 1997-2005 and also hold some of the voters who left Labour from 2005-2010 for the LDs and Greens before returning and regain some of the voters who left Labour for the SNP in 2015
We have seen long-term unemployment fall and despite all the reforms to benefits that have been made we have not seen child poverty rise despite all the shouts about "bedroom tax" and other nonsense over the last five years.
The marginal rates argument is a very strong one in my opinion. Incentives matter, and if they end up misaligned then that's seriously bad news.
The fact is child-poverty is still at a significance rate in this country - surely, the aim of any government is to reduce child poverty. It should not be a cause of celebration that we still have child poverty in this country. And despite all the nonsense about the bedroom tax et al, we have had homelessness increase in this country.
Yes we do need skills, but that is an issue more for the education system than the tax system. What the tax system can do is both assist in getting people into work and then while in work making transitions smoother. Dealing with the difficulties that tax credit cause is a key issue with that.
And I have seen from the workplace side just how much of a disincentive tax credits can be. I work as an employer and regularly have been able to offer more work to people who were initially hired as part time but that work has been refused by people on tax credits as they view themselves as "not allowed" to work more than 16 hours, as if they worked more hours they'd lose their benefits. Not only would they lose some benefits but risk being fined if they took overtime without informing the benefits agencies etc. This destroys flexibility and leads to those not on tax credits being able to take up extra work while those who are struggle to do so and end up with less wages. That is a failure of the system that should be addressed.
As for your point on the education system - yes skills are an issue for the education system, that's my whole point. That you need a range of measures to tackle poverty alongside welfare reform. And even then you need to create a situation where the withdrawal of benefits are mitigated - whether it is by increasing the personal allowance, or by increasing the minimum wage. The reform of the tax system is short-term - long term issues which will solve the poverty issue are cent red on public service and economic reform.
As for your last point - well I haven't denied that the system needs reform, simply that withdrawing benefits in itself isn't a solution. Welfare reform needs to be accompanied with other measures.
Future changes do need to come in a package too. Given the history of the last five years I expect they will be. I seriously hope the end goal is a system where the real marginal tax rate for those on benefits is low, which means ending a plethora of means tested benefits and taxes and having a simpler system instead.
There was actually a BBC leader's debate a week ago and more to come
It's fascinating to read your interest in Labour policies, leadership, election results given you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Quite bizarre. Been weeks now, day after day, night after night...
UKIP 331, Con 320, Ind 313, Con 307, Con 304,LD 302, UKIP 291,LD 283, LD 281, UKIP 279,LD 277, UKIP 259, Ind 252, Con 246, Ind 217, Ind 194, Lab 84, Lab 74.