When taken in the context of the opportunity he had, it's an absolute stinker.
Eh?
The opportunity he had was to dismantle most of Labour's legacy and keep them out of office for another decade. In that context, he smashed it out of the park (the cricket budget sketch in the Times today is a thing of joy)
As the deadline approaches for Greece to deliver its plan A later today, Greek media are reporting that a team of French experts have been sent to Athens to help them write it.
Makes it sound like some sort of massive essay crisis. "No more excuses. You've already had two extensions. If your plan isn't on my desk by 5pm, you are going to fail the course be kicked out of the Euro".
Think the smart thing to do after this budget is to lay Osborne as next PM; I can imagine there are a fair few Tory back-benchers somewhat disgruntled at Osborne delivering Labour's budget. When taken in the context of the opportunity he had, it's an absolute stinker.
By contrast I think the IHT cuts, the benefit caps, protection for defence spending and indeed the living wage will have cheered most Tories, Osborne must now be favourite to lead the Tories in 2020
When taken in the context of the opportunity he had, it's an absolute stinker.
Eh?
The opportunity he had was to dismantle most of Labour's legacy and keep them out of office for another decade. In that context, he smashed it out of the park (the cricket budget sketch in the Times today is a thing of joy)
Where does the left go from here? Labour and the LibDems face a tough directional decision. We live in a world of: 1. Globalisation and international competitiveness. We can't uninvent the internet or air travel or container shipping etc. Darwinian competition means the lazy or complacent face existensial threats from the clever or hardworking. Indulging the lazy or stupid or unwilling to change merely (and expensively) delays the inevitable - be they individuals, companies or whole countries. You can choose to compete and thrive or you can choose not to compete and accept where that takes you. 2. Massive debt overhangs. We gorged on debt. We lived it large for a while and the deficits seemed not to matter. Now we discover that they do. If you borrow it is reasonable for those who lend to you to expect their money back. Otherwise they'll stop lending. The West, China, Japan, Argentina - you name it, they've geared up. 2015 is the year the world really learns that debt does matter. Really. Viscerally. Brutally. It matters. 3. There's no money left. Recognising 2 above, we are now in a world where ending deficits and repairing balance sheets is unavoidable. Nobody wants to follow Greece. or Venezuela. And this means there can be no public sector largesse. Pennies count. Efficiency matters.
How do you frame a coherent and not instantly destroyable policy package around these truths from a lefty perspective? I have no idea. Osborne clearly sees that the UK's only route to a better future is from the security of competitive advantage. A smaller state, an attractive investment climate, etc. He's right. But how can you promote competitiveness / survival and leftyism at the same time? Is the circle intellectually squarable? The realities of the global economic situation are fundamentally hostile to incoherent spendyism now. This is the real message of the budget for me. Ozzy is lining the UK up to meet the future. And Labour seem to have precisely nothing to say.
On this day in 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers who ignored his order to return to work. The sweeping mass firing of federal employees slowed commercial air travel, but it did not cripple the system as the strikers had forecast.
Two days earlier, nearly 13,000 controllers walked out after talks with the Federal Aviation Administration collapsed. As a result, some 7,000 flights across the country were canceled on that day at the peak of the summer travel season.
Robert Poli, president of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, sought an across-the-board annual wage increase of $10,000 for the controllers, whose pay ranged from $20,462 to $49,229 per year. He also sought a reduction of their five-day, 40-hour workweek to a four-day, 32-hour workweek. The FAA made a $40 million counteroffer, far short of the $770 million package that the union sought. Reagan branded the strike illegal. He threatened to fire any controller who failed to return to work within 48 hours. Federal judges levied fines of $1 million per day against the union.
To the chagrin of the strikers, the FAA’s contingency plans worked. Some 3,000 supervisors joined 2,000 nonstriking controllers and 900 military controllers in manning airport towers. Before long, about 80 percent of flights were operating normally. Air freight remained virtually unaffected.
In carrying out his threat, Reagan also imposed a lifetime ban on rehiring the strikers. In October 1981, the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified PATCO.
Morning. I am the only one thinking that Boris should do to the Tube drivers what Ronald Reagan did to the air traffic controllers?
Isn't this the kind of 'executive orders' that the GOP are always complaining about now?! Also ironically PATCO endorsed Reagan in the 1980 election, bet they regretted that one...
Mr. Antifrank, not sure a party that had Miliband as its leader for five years will get away with calling Osborne stupid just yet.
It's an attempt that has to be made.
I dislike much of this budget, but I'm in awe of George Osborne's shamelessness and sheer low cunning. It was politics at its most ruthless, with the Chancellor bayoneting the seriously wounded on the Labour benches.
Out of interest, what do you dislike about it?
For starters:
1) Reducing the tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages is a sop to young middle class voters that does nothing for the housing market's problems and makes it still harder for those at the bottom. And no, I don't have any buy-to-let mortgages so this isn't special pleading.
2) Raising the living wage so steeply is likely to price some people out of jobs who would like to work (though I will note that it should act as an incentive for employers to focus on productivity, which is a good thing). We should be helping people into work, not making it harder for them.
3) Taking tax credits away more than offsets the pay advantages of raising the minimum wage for those that stay in work. We should not be penalising the low paid in work - quite the opposite.
4) And this is special pleading - could pensions please be left alone for five minutes?
So all of Labour's talk about a NLW was in reality a con? Are their memories so short that they do not know what they advocated? Will be interesting to hear if the Labour leader candidates call it a con. BTW is Harriet in overall charge of Labour's PR at present?
"But how can you promote competitiveness / survival and leftyism at the same time? "
You have to break the link between the automatic delivery of £££ to "da poor" and make it an effort to reward based system.
Want to get ahead ? Vote Labour , work hard and study hard and do the right thing and we will reward you with the tools to get ahead and support you when you want to better your community and family.
Mr. Antifrank, not sure a party that had Miliband as its leader for five years will get away with calling Osborne stupid just yet.
It's an attempt that has to be made.
I dislike much of this budget, but I'm in awe of George Osborne's shamelessness and sheer low cunning. It was politics at its most ruthless, with the Chancellor bayoneting the seriously wounded on the Labour benches.
Out of interest, what do you dislike about it?
For starters:
1) Reducing the tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages is a sop to young middle class voters that does nothing for the housing market's problems and makes it still harder for those at the bottom. And no, I don't have any buy-to-let mortgages so this isn't special pleading.
2) Raising the living wage so steeply is likely to price some people out of jobs who would like to work (though I will note that it should act as an incentive for employers to focus on productivity, which is a good thing). We should be helping people into work, not making it harder for them.
3) Taking tax credits away more than offsets the pay advantages of raising the minimum wage for those that stay in work. We should not be penalising the low paid in work - quite the opposite.
4) And this is special pleading - could pensions please be left alone for five minutes?
3) is entirely dependant on whether or not you have kids. There are arguments for and against extra benefits for families, but low earning childless couples/singletons will be better off I'd guess...
So all of Labour's talk about a NLW was in reality a con? Are their memories so short that they do not know what they advocated? Will be interesting to hear if the Labour leader candidates call it a con. BTW is Harriet in overall charge of Labour's PR at present?
"Labour is a toddler that has to be told time and again that the cooker is burny but every now and then throws a fit and pulls the scalding pot down around it. May’s rout was the rebuke for another tantrum but the sting lingers in the present leadership contest.
Having driven the grown-ups from the party, Labour faces a starkly unserious field for its top job. Two soft-left continuity candidates compete with a hard-left dreamer and an MP who has only been in Parliament five years. Labour doesn’t look like an alternative government and, what’s worse, it doesn’t seem to care."
"The next Labour leader will be forced to confront four hard realities:
Political. Tony Blair was right about almost everything. Ed Miliband was right about almost nothing. Labour can only win from the centre ground. The Left is electoral wasteland.
Geographical. Labour is no longer a national party and outside London and the North, it is barely a party at all. There are 13 English county councils with not a single Labour MP. The Conservatives had their best night in Wales since 1983. Scotland has nine times as many billionaires as Labour MPs."
Interesting from Os, Brown left a legacy totally deliberately of huge welfare dependency even among middle-class voters, Tax Credits always seemed flawed to me taking money then giving it back, phasing them out is a great idea, Corporation Tax and Dividend Taxes appear sensible as well.
Such an increase in minimum/living wage is great in the majority of cases business can afford it but what about a loss making pub or shop, some low skilled people may lose jobs.
1) Reducing the tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages is a sop to young middle class voters that does nothing for the housing market's problems and makes it still harder for those at the bottom. And no, I don't have any buy-to-let mortgages so this isn't special pleading.
2) Raising the living wage so steeply is likely to price some people out of jobs who would like to work (though I will note that it should act as an incentive for employers to focus on productivity, which is a good thing). We should be helping people into work, not making it harder for them.
3) Taking tax credits away more than offsets the pay advantages of raising the minimum wage for those that stay in work. We should not be penalising the low paid in work - quite the opposite.
4) And this is special pleading - could pensions please be left alone for five minutes?
+1
Also, 83bn spending hike, dividend tax attack on small companies pointlessness of tying IHT tax reduction to property.
All in all, the question is not what the Labour parties attack lines are, but can Osborne actually get this crap through parliament, or will Tory rebels vote it down?
Mr. Antifrank, not sure a party that had Miliband as its leader for five years will get away with calling Osborne stupid just yet.
It's an attempt that has to be made.
I dislike much of this budget, but I'm in awe of George Osborne's shamelessness and sheer low cunning. It was politics at its most ruthless, with the Chancellor bayoneting the seriously wounded on the Labour benches.
Out of interest, what do you dislike about it?
For starters:
1) Reducing the tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages is a sop to young middle class voters that does nothing for the housing market's problems and makes it still harder for those at the bottom. And no, I don't have any buy-to-let mortgages so this isn't special pleading.
2) Raising the living wage so steeply is likely to price some people out of jobs who would like to work (though I will note that it should act as an incentive for employers to focus on productivity, which is a good thing). We should be helping people into work, not making it harder for them.
3) Taking tax credits away more than offsets the pay advantages of raising the minimum wage for those that stay in work. We should not be penalising the low paid in work - quite the opposite.
4) And this is special pleading - could pensions please be left alone for five minutes?
Thank you. I don't have the detailed knowledge really to comment on (1) - (3) but agree on (4). I am trying to sort out my own pension at the moment and it makes it very hard if there is never any certainty.
In general on housing I'd have thought the real issue is the lack of supply. But overall I do like the fact that there is focus on raising wages at the bottom end and taxing less, though there is always the issue of unintended consequences of course. It's always seemed daft to me to tax people and then give them some of their own money back to give them enough to live on.
Where does the left go from here? Labour and the LibDems face a tough directional decision. We live in a world of: 1. Globalisation and international competitiveness. We can't uninvent the internet or air travel or container shipping etc. Darwinian competition means the lazy or complacent face existensial threats from the clever or hardworking. Indulging the lazy or stupid or unwilling to change merely (and expensively) delays the inevitable - be they individuals, companies or whole countries. You can choose to compete and thrive or you can choose not to compete and accept where that takes you. 2. Massive debt overhangs. We gorged on debt. We lived it large for a while and the deficits seemed not to matter. Now we discover that they do. If you borrow it is reasonable for those who lend to you to expect their money back. Otherwise they'll stop lending. The West, China, Japan, Argentina - you name it, they've geared up. 2015 is the year the world really learns that debt does matter. Really. Viscerally. Brutally. It matters. 3. There's no money left. Recognising 2 above, we are now in a world where ending deficits and repairing balance sheets is unavoidable. Nobody wants to follow Greece. or Venezuela. And this means there can be no public sector largesse. Pennies count. Efficiency matters.
How do you frame a coherent and not instantly destroyable policy package around these truths from a lefty perspective? I have no idea. Osborne clearly sees that the UK's only route to a better future is from the security of competitive advantage. A smaller state, an attractive investment climate, etc. He's right. But how can you promote competitiveness / survival and leftyism at the same time? Is the circle intellectually squarable? The realities of the global economic situation are fundamentally hostile to incoherent spendyism now. This is the real message of the budget for me. Ozzy is lining the UK up to meet the future. And Labour seem to have precisely nothing to say.
You are so right. The UK's major problem is the lack of disciplined aspiration in so many parts of our education system and mainly public sector. This contrast came through so vividly when watching the second part of the programme on Grammar Schools and what the former pupils had gained from them. Perhaps our benefits system is still too generous when compared with the arising and developing countries that form our global competition.
The private sector tends to put on fat in the good times, but rapidly slims when times turn bad - not a good practice really. The same often happens to the public sector, but it has to learn to be efficient at slimming all the time or else it could collapse when times are bad nationally.
GO may be lining up the country to face the future, but many including the unions are still stuck in the 2070s/2080s - we have to teach people to think long term.
Turning to more important matters, isn't today when the Greek Government presents its new proposals? Can't imagine the banks have much cash left, even with rationing withdrawals.
It's interesting to look at how the Americans are viewing this - it's even distracting them from China. They all seem completely baffled by how it happened in the first place.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting if sometimes rather caustic take on events:
The Washington Post, hardly noted as a bastion of the radical right, is rather more scathing and seems to sign up to divers conspiracy theories about how and why this is happening:
Interesting from Os, Brown left a legacy totally deliberately of huge welfare dependency even among middle-class voters, Tax Credits always seemed flawed to me taking money then giving it back, phasing them out is a great idea, Corporation Tax and Dividend Taxes appear sensible as well.
Such an increase in minimum/living wage is great in the majority of cases business can afford it but what about a loss making pub or shop, some low skilled people may lose jobs.
Barwork and shop assistant positions can be filled by the 18-24 yr olds. Twas ever thus...
Unless Osborne is actually aspiring to create a 'living wage', for all then this 'Living Wage' idea comes across as simply a reboot of the minimum wage, but with the terminology of the 'Living Wage', to attract blue-collar workers to the Tories. That may produce favourable headlines, and narratives for the Tories in the short-term - but in the long-term, if blue-collar workers end up suffering from this budget then the Tories' ability to achieve this will be limited.
I also think Yvette's gender analysis is somewhat limited. It's not that I don't agree with it - I do. But the under 55 demographic of working mums, is one Labour already do well with. The post election data from MORI showed, that Labour had a lead with under 55 women - it was over 55 women, where Labour struggled to gain support. Yvette is preaching to a choir, that already support Labour, and I suspect by 2020 will still support Labour.
As for Darling comment - I think the criticism of nit-picking is unfair. When he says they went far beyond what Labour intended, I suspect he means that tax credits were intended to help the lowest paid, as opposed to developing into some kind of corporate welfare, bring down wages, and with companies in the knowledge that tax credits would prop up wages. And no matter whether you agree with Osborne's long-term aim or not, the fact is that the withdrawal of tax credits, will hurt many out there. I'm most interested to see the IFS' analysis - apparently they'll release a more detailed analysis of budget today.
As for Labour's response to this budget, well currently a collective, cogent response will be difficult because Labour has no leader, and so has no clear direction. I think this is why Osborne decided on a July budget - start off the second term of government by defining the political agenda with the opposition at its most weakest.
OT Today, the buglers of the local fire service will play "The Last Post" at the Menin Gate, Ypres for the 30,000th time.
The ceremony, which started on 2 July 1928, commemorates the 54,896 Commonwealth soldiers who died fighting Flanders in World War 1 and who have no known grave.
During World War 2 the occupying Germans stopped the ceremony, but as Wikipedia reports "On the evening that Polish forces liberated Ypres in the Second World War, the ceremony was resumed at the Menin Gate despite the fact that heavy fighting was still taking place in other parts of the town."
Can you imagine the scene? Sporadic shots and explosions. The rumble of military vehicles. Then suddenly, the music of the Last Post echoes across the town. I don't know about you, but I find the poignancy of that rather overwhelming.
"Labour is a toddler that has to be told time and again that the cooker is burny but every now and then throws a fit and pulls the scalding pot down around it. May’s rout was the rebuke for another tantrum but the sting lingers in the present leadership contest.
Having driven the grown-ups from the party, Labour faces a starkly unserious field for its top job. Two soft-left continuity candidates compete with a hard-left dreamer and an MP who has only been in Parliament five years. Labour doesn’t look like an alternative government and, what’s worse, it doesn’t seem to care."
Cameron had only been in Parliament for 4 years when he became leader, both Cooper and Burnham played parts in the New Labour government as much as the Shadow Cabinet of Ed Miliband and no opposition looks like an alternative government 5 years after an election.
As for Darling comment - I think the criticism of nit-picking is unfair. When he says they went far beyond what Labour intended, I suspect he means that tax credits were intended to help the lowest paid, as opposed to developing into some kind of corporate welfare, bring down wages, and with companies in the knowledge that tax credits would prop up wages.
It seems likely that corporate welfare was exactly Gordon Brown's plan all along
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
On topic, Liz Kendall was embarrassingly poor on Channel 4 News last night. Those contemplating the leadership election should watch that clip.
Saw that, I wasn't sure about Kendall, now I am she isn't good enough, better than Burnham but still not good enough. Cooper is by far the best Labour have on offer but she will lose.
Mr. Antifrank, not sure a party that had Miliband as its leader for five years will get away with calling Osborne stupid just yet.
It's an attempt that has to be made.
I dislike much of this budget, but I'm in awe of George Osborne's shamelessness and sheer low cunning. It was politics at its most ruthless, with the Chancellor bayoneting the seriously wounded on the Labour benches.
Out of interest, what do you dislike about it?
For starters:
1) Reducing the tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages is a sop to young middle class voters that does nothing for the housing market's problems and makes it still harder for those at the bottom. And no, I don't have any buy-to-let mortgages so this isn't special pleading.
2) Raising the living wage so steeply is likely to price some people out of jobs who would like to work (though I will note that it should act as an incentive for employers to focus on productivity, which is a good thing). We should be helping people into work, not making it harder for them.
3) Taking tax credits away more than offsets the pay advantages of raising the minimum wage for those that stay in work. We should not be penalising the low paid in work - quite the opposite.
4) And this is special pleading - could pensions please be left alone for five minutes?
Your comments are absurd. For a start the so called living wage is being introduced over 5 years. It may well cost jobs, ie fewer created. But then we hear people talking about poor productivity - not least Labour. Better productivity by definition means fewer jobs.
But the purpose of this budget is to cut welfare dependency which has grown under Labour and which we cannot afford. It is aimed at increasing wages and ending work subsidies, it is aimed at lowering tax on companies but making them pay for employment and training and it is both now and in the future determined to cut taxes for workers.
Your carping - like Coopers - about hypothetical detail misses out on the glaring inadequacies of 13 years of gross mismanagement and grotesque social engineering by Labour. We ought to criticise that these measures have taken so long to implement, however the shocking economic inheritance left by Labour has encouraged the govt to take its time rather than wreck the economy for doctrinaire reasons. Osborne should be applauded.
If I was on the Titanic commanded by Captain Brown, I would not refuse the request by First Officer Osborne to get into the lifeboat because the seat was wet.
On topic, Liz Kendall was embarrassingly poor on Channel 4 News last night. Those contemplating the leadership election should watch that clip.
Saw that, I wasn't sure about Kendall, now I am she isn't good enough, better than Burnham but still not good enough. Cooper is by far the best Labour have on offer but she will lose.
Lose to the Conservatives, or lose the leadership race ?
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
Did anyone see the mum on Sky news last night
"this might make people wanting bigger families think about whether they could afford them." (I paraphrase).
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
So perhaps a good and moral lefty aspiration would be towards educational excellence? Hard, results based, internationally PISA competitive, top quality educational outcomes should be the religion of a serious lefty. But what do we actually get? Dumbing down, the Blob, prizes for all, Marxist horseshite, 'we must never try any new structures in education - they might work', etc, etc. The left doesn't really give the tiniest little shit about our bad education system. They demonise any truly moral change agents (yes I AM talking about Gove) who seek to improve the outcomes. Fuck the left. They are wrong, hatefilled, spiteful cunZ.
Your comments are absurd. For a start the so called living wage is being introduced over 5 years. It may well cost jobs, ie fewer created. But then we hear people talking about poor productivity - not least Labour. Better productivity by definition means fewer jobs.
But the purpose of this budget is to cut welfare dependency which has grown under Labour and which we cannot afford. It is aimed at increasing wages and ending work subsidies, it is aimed at lowering tax on companies but making them pay for employment and training and it is both now and in the future determined to cut taxes for workers.
Your carping - like Coopers - about hypothetical detail misses out on the glaring inadequacies of 13 years of gross mismanagement and grotesque social engineering by Labour. We ought to criticise that these measures have taken so long to implement, however the shocking economic inheritance left by Labour has encouraged the govt to take its time rather than wreck the economy for doctrinaire reasons. Osborne should be applauded.
If I was on the Titanic commanded by Captain Brown, I would not refuse the request by First Officer Osborne to get into the lifeboat because the seat was wet.
I wasn't expecting the enthusiastic agreement of Conservative loyalists.
I acknowledged the positive impact on productivity. But airily wafting away concerns about how the poorest in work will potentially be hard hit is playing up to all the stereotypes about Conservatives.
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
So perhaps a good and moral lefty aspiration would be towards educational excellence? Hard, results based, internationally PISA competitive, top quality educational outcomes should be the religion of a serious lefty. But what do we actually get? Dumbing down, the Blob, prizes for all, Marxist horseshite, 'we must never try any new structures in education - they might work', etc, etc. The left doesn't really give the tiniest little shit about our bad education system. They demonise any truly moral change agents (yes I AM talking about Gove) who seek to improve the outcomes. Fuck the left. They are wrong, hatefilled, spiteful cunZ.
All of which explains why lefty boroughs in London have achieved the most success in turning round their schools since the mid-1990s.
I saw many similar voxpops yesterday. Benefits:37yrs On The Dole is quite interesting and measured. Series running now on C5 - worth catching-up on last show.
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
Did anyone see the mum on Sky news last night
"this might make people wanting bigger families think about whether they could afford them." (I paraphrase).
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
So perhaps a good and moral lefty aspiration would be towards educational excellence? Hard, results based, internationally PISA competitive, top quality educational outcomes should be the religion of a serious lefty. But what do we actually get? Dumbing down, the Blob, prizes for all, Marxist horseshite, 'we must never try any new structures in education - they might work', etc, etc. The left doesn't really give the tiniest little shit about our bad education system. They demonise any truly moral change agents (yes I AM talking about Gove) who seek to improve the outcomes.
There you go - thats the Labour route back - "we will no longer be the party that wants to keep the poor in their place just to keep our client voters happy"
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
So perhaps a good and moral lefty aspiration would be towards educational excellence? Hard, results based, internationally PISA competitive, top quality educational outcomes should be the religion of a serious lefty. But what do we actually get? Dumbing down, the Blob, prizes for all, Marxist horseshite, 'we must never try any new structures in education - they might work', etc, etc. The left doesn't really give the tiniest little shit about our bad education system. They demonise any truly moral change agents (yes I AM talking about Gove) who seek to improve the outcomes. Fuck the left. They are wrong, hatefilled, spiteful cunZ.
Ummm okay....that was unnecessarily angry response. I don't recall anyone on the left rejecting all new ideas at all, or saying that there should be 'prizes for all'. I think the left would like everyone to do well - an admirable aspiration, and opportunity for all. Where I think the Left - under New Labour went wrong, is for example the idea that *all* should go to university - that silly 50% target, when only 32% of jobs require a degree. When really, the Left should have been the first to embrace the idea that not everyone is academic, and should have advocated vocational and technical training while in office. As for *any* demonizing moral agents of change, you can disagree, and be critical of Gove's education policy while wanting education reform. I certainly don't think Free Schools are the panacea to all the woes in the education system, and I think Gove's approach of seeing anyone not completely signed up to his reforms, as an evil 'vested interest' is also narrow-minded.
I may be misremembering - but a few years ago the guy who founded ICQ [some ancient chat software] spent all his money on poor Chilean or was it Israeli school kids and got tremendous results. He spoke/debated with MLane-Fox and a few others at a conference we held for the Top 100 managers at MCL.
Now that's a Lefty who demanded high standards and had didn't take any prisoners on the way. He was most inspiring.
The producer interests we have here from the Left are all upside down.
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
So perhaps a good and moral lefty aspiration would be towards educational excellence? Hard, results based, internationally PISA competitive, top quality educational outcomes should be the religion of a serious lefty. But what do we actually get? Dumbing down, the Blob, prizes for all, Marxist horseshite, 'we must never try any new structures in education - they might work', etc, etc. The left doesn't really give the tiniest little shit about our bad education system. They demonise any truly moral change agents (yes I AM talking about Gove) who seek to improve the outcomes. Fuck the left. They are wrong, hatefilled, spiteful cunZ.
On topic, Liz Kendall was embarrassingly poor on Channel 4 News last night. Those contemplating the leadership election should watch that clip.
Saw that, I wasn't sure about Kendall, now I am she isn't good enough, better than Burnham but still not good enough. Cooper is by far the best Labour have on offer but she will lose.
On topic, Liz Kendall was embarrassingly poor on Channel 4 News last night. Those contemplating the leadership election should watch that clip.
Saw that, I wasn't sure about Kendall, now I am she isn't good enough, better than Burnham but still not good enough. Cooper is by far the best Labour have on offer but she will lose.
Lose to the Conservatives, or lose the leadership race ?
She will lose the race, Burnham is a shoe in, if there was a miracle and Lenny and the Unions make a sensible choice (they are still in control) then Cooper would probably lose to the Conservatives but she would at least turn the Labour tanker around. Burnham is just another opportunist who would go further down the wrong road.
I can't get Yvette Cooper's sums to add up. She claims a couple working full time on minimum wage with two kids will be £700 worse off. Yet my calculations and the BBC budget calculator suggests these numbers:
As an addendum to that, it's pretty dishonest that the BBC has a calculator that includes the reduction in tax credits, but doesn't take account of the higher minimum wage.
On topic, Liz Kendall was embarrassingly poor on Channel 4 News last night. Those contemplating the leadership election should watch that clip.
Saw that, I wasn't sure about Kendall, now I am she isn't good enough, better than Burnham but still not good enough. Cooper is by far the best Labour have on offer but she will lose.
Lose to the Conservatives, or lose the leadership race ?
She will lose the race, Burnham is a shoe in, if there was a miracle and Lenny and the Unions make a sensible choice (they are still in control) then Cooper would probably lose to the Conservatives but she would at least turn the Labour tanker around. Burnham is just another opportunist who would go further down the wrong road.
It's OMOV now, so the influence of unions will be signifcantly reduced in comparison to the last leadership election.
On this day in 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers who ignored his order to return to work. The sweeping mass firing of federal employees slowed commercial air travel, but it did not cripple the system as the strikers had forecast.
Two days earlier, nearly 13,000 controllers walked out after talks with the Federal Aviation Administration collapsed. As a result, some 7,000 flights across the country were canceled on that day at the peak of the summer travel season.
Robert Poli, president of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, sought an across-the-board annual wage increase of $10,000 for the controllers, whose pay ranged from $20,462 to $49,229 per year. He also sought a reduction of their five-day, 40-hour workweek to a four-day, 32-hour workweek. The FAA made a $40 million counteroffer, far short of the $770 million package that the union sought. Reagan branded the strike illegal. He threatened to fire any controller who failed to return to work within 48 hours. Federal judges levied fines of $1 million per day against the union.
To the chagrin of the strikers, the FAA’s contingency plans worked. Some 3,000 supervisors joined 2,000 nonstriking controllers and 900 military controllers in manning airport towers. Before long, about 80 percent of flights were operating normally. Air freight remained virtually unaffected.
In carrying out his threat, Reagan also imposed a lifetime ban on rehiring the strikers. In October 1981, the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified PATCO.
Morning. I am the only one thinking that Boris should do to the Tube drivers what Ronald Reagan did to the air traffic controllers?
Isn't this the kind of 'executive orders' that the GOP are always complaining about now?! Also ironically PATCO endorsed Reagan in the 1980 election, bet they regretted that one...
Not at all. The GOP have no problems with Executive Orders per se, only ones that would extend presidential powers into Congress' domain, usurping their legislative prerogative. What Reagan did was to issue an EO to implement undisputed existing law which the courts upheld. What Obama is doing in, say, the environmental area is right on the line and sometimes over it (based on several defeats in the courts) of using EOs to implement new policies which he has failed to get legislated and which go directly against the wishes of the majority in the House (and sometimes Senate) on these legistlatable issues. quite a difference.
I can't get Yvette Cooper's sums to add up. She claims a couple working full time on minimum wage with two kids will be £700 worse off. Yet my calculations and the BBC budget calculator suggests these numbers:
On topic, Liz Kendall was embarrassingly poor on Channel 4 News last night. Those contemplating the leadership election should watch that clip.
Saw that, I wasn't sure about Kendall, now I am she isn't good enough, better than Burnham but still not good enough. Cooper is by far the best Labour have on offer but she will lose.
Lose to the Conservatives, or lose the leadership race ?
She will lose the race, Burnham is a shoe in, if there was a miracle and Lenny and the Unions make a sensible choice (they are still in control) then Cooper would probably lose to the Conservatives but she would at least turn the Labour tanker around. Burnham is just another opportunist who would go further down the wrong road.
And Cameron and Blair and Major were not opportunists?
Just en route to Bristol - very pleased that we have a privatised rail service so that I can use SWT in the absence of FGW service. Just a shame that our trade fair is being held next to BTM and opens on the second day of the strike.
Little public sympathy for striking unions anymore - have to wonder why they bother anymore, should stick to providing legal/advisory representation and behind the scenes. No public desire for mass action in consumer led economy.
Would our resident Andy Burnham fan like to comment on whether he'll be tough on strikes, and tough on the causes of strikes? It would poll well...
I can't get Yvette Cooper's sums to add up. She claims a couple working full time on minimum wage with two kids will be £700 worse off. Yet my calculations and the BBC budget calculator suggests these numbers:
So it's £291. That's not good, but it's not as bad as Mrs Cooper is claiming.
Yvette is using 'minimum wage' ie the age 22 wage, and forgetting about the 'living wage' being introduced for those over 25. So she is either using terminology designed to mislead or the couple in her example are aged 22-24.
On topic, Liz Kendall was embarrassingly poor on Channel 4 News last night. Those contemplating the leadership election should watch that clip.
Saw that, I wasn't sure about Kendall, now I am she isn't good enough, better than Burnham but still not good enough. Cooper is by far the best Labour have on offer but she will lose.
I think after the general election you should be very careful of reading too much into opinion polls. Where it matters Burnham will be a complete turn off, he is likely to perform even worse than Miliband. At least Miliband had the leadership ability to bring people together and run a united team. Burnham is temperamentaly more like Brown, can give it but can't take it in crude terms.
I do wonder if Osborne is leaving it a bit late to eliminate the deficit, and thus actually failing to do so at all if things should not go as planned. I mean, it was moved to 2017 fom 2015, then to 2018, and ever since then I've assumed it would actually be 2020 at some point, but the when dealing with the deficit is supposed to be his key thing, if he fails to manage it by the next GE, it'll be easier to craft attacks on him or whoever else succeeds Cameron as not competent.
Not a deal breaker if the economy is feeling alright at the same time, but if we are on a bit of a downturn again and they failed in 10 years to do what they said would take 5, the arguments are harder for them, particularly with newish Labour people to face.
Don't know if this has been said yet. But one thing that strikes me is that Osborne has not just wrong-footed Labour by announcing a living wage, he's also out-manoeuvred Boris, who was until now its most prominent Tory proponent. Boris is in danger of being permanently side-lined to the role of court jester.
I do wonder if Osborne is leaving it a bit late to eliminate the deficit, and thus actually failing to do so at all if things should not go as planned. I mean, it was moved to 2017 fom 2015, then to 2018, and ever since then I've assumed it would actually be 2020 at some point, but the when dealing with the deficit is supposed to be his key thing, if he fails to manage it by the next GE, it'll be easier to craft attacks on him or whoever else succeeds Cameron as not competent.
Not a deal breaker if the economy is feeling alright at the same time, but if we are on a bit of a downturn again and they failed in 10 years to do what they said would take 5, the arguments are harder for them, particularly with newish Labour people to face.
If the deficit is not quite sorted by 2020, GO can say there's a bit more to do yet, we're not ready to trust Labour to finish the job.
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
So perhaps a good and moral lefty aspiration would be towards educational excellence? Hard, results based, internationally PISA competitive, top quality educational outcomes should be the religion of a serious lefty. But what do we actually get? Dumbing down, the Blob, prizes for all, Marxist horseshite, 'we must never try any new structures in education - they might work', etc, etc. The left doesn't really give the tiniest little shit about our bad education system. They demonise any truly moral change agents (yes I AM talking about Gove) who seek to improve the outcomes. Fuck the left. They are wrong, hatefilled, spiteful cunZ.
All of which explains why lefty boroughs in London have achieved the most success in turning round their schools since the mid-1990s.
I do wonder if Osborne is leaving it a bit late to eliminate the deficit, and thus actually failing to do so at all if things should not go as planned. I mean, it was moved to 2017 fom 2015, then to 2018, and ever since then I've assumed it would actually be 2020 at some point, but the when dealing with the deficit is supposed to be his key thing, if he fails to manage it by the next GE, it'll be easier to craft attacks on him or whoever else succeeds Cameron as not competent.
Not a deal breaker if the economy is feeling alright at the same time, but if we are on a bit of a downturn again and they failed in 10 years to do what they said would take 5, the arguments are harder for them, particularly with newish Labour people to face.
If the deficit is not quite sorted by 2020, GO can say there's a bit more to do yet, we're not ready to trust Labour to finish the job.
If there is no surplus by 2020 the Tories will lose regardless, except perhaps if Corbyn wins the Labour leadership
Just en route to Bristol - very pleased that we have a privatised rail service so that I can use SWT in the absence of FGW service. Just a shame that our trade fair is being held next to BTM and opens on the second day of the strike.
Little public sympathy for striking unions anymore - have to wonder why they bother anymore, should stick to providing legal/advisory representation and behind the scenes. No public desire for mass action in consumer led economy.
Would our resident Andy Burnham fan like to comment on whether he'll be tough on strikes, and tough on the causes of strikes? It would poll well...
On topic, Liz Kendall was embarrassingly poor on Channel 4 News last night. Those contemplating the leadership election should watch that clip.
Saw that, I wasn't sure about Kendall, now I am she isn't good enough, better than Burnham but still not good enough. Cooper is by far the best Labour have on offer but she will lose.
I think after the general election you should be very careful of reading too much into opinion polls. Where it matters Burnham will be a complete turn off, he is likely to perform even worse than Miliband. At least Miliband had the leadership ability to bring people together and run a united team. Burnham is temperamentaly more like Brown, can give it but can't take it in crude terms.
Wrong on both counts. Firstly it was Labour's refusal to take note of polls in 2010 showing David more popular than Ed which helped doom them from the start. Second, regardless of policy, Burnham probably has the best emotional intelligence of all the candidates running and was loyal to both Blair and Brown. Miliband shafted his brother and got Blairites sniping at him from day 1 and Balls plotting, Frank Field even told him to his face he should go and bet he would lose!
That was Not out, but camera forshortening can often make a catch taken at very low height look like it the ball has hit the floor when in fact it has not.
This type of dismissal is one where the camera doesn't always tell the truth.
Just en route to Bristol - very pleased that we have a privatised rail service so that I can use SWT in the absence of FGW service. Just a shame that our trade fair is being held next to BTM and opens on the second day of the strike.
Little public sympathy for striking unions anymore - have to wonder why they bother anymore, should stick to providing legal/advisory representation and behind the scenes. No public desire for mass action in consumer led economy.
Would our resident Andy Burnham fan like to comment on whether he'll be tough on strikes, and tough on the causes of strikes? It would poll well...
Corbyn is now the unions' man
So will Burnham condemn the strikes and the cost to the economy that they cause?
I do wonder if Osborne is leaving it a bit late to eliminate the deficit, and thus actually failing to do so at all if things should not go as planned. I mean, it was moved to 2017 fom 2015, then to 2018, and ever since then I've assumed it would actually be 2020 at some point, but the when dealing with the deficit is supposed to be his key thing, if he fails to manage it by the next GE, it'll be easier to craft attacks on him or whoever else succeeds Cameron as not competent.
Not a deal breaker if the economy is feeling alright at the same time, but if we are on a bit of a downturn again and they failed in 10 years to do what they said would take 5, the arguments are harder for them, particularly with newish Labour people to face.
If the deficit is not quite sorted by 2020, GO can say there's a bit more to do yet, we're not ready to trust Labour to finish the job.
Well, they'll lose my goodwill if he says that - I was annoyed when he pushed it back the first time.
On topic, Liz Kendall was embarrassingly poor on Channel 4 News last night. Those contemplating the leadership election should watch that clip.
Saw that, I wasn't sure about Kendall, now I am she isn't good enough, better than Burnham but still not good enough. Cooper is by far the best Labour have on offer but she will lose.
I think after the general election you should be very careful of reading too much into opinion polls. Where it matters Burnham will be a complete turn off, he is likely to perform even worse than Miliband. At least Miliband had the leadership ability to bring people together and run a united team. Burnham is temperamentaly more like Brown, can give it but can't take it in crude terms.
Wrong on both counts. Firstly it was Labour's refusal to take note of polls in 2010 showing David more popular than Ed which helped doom them from the start. Second, regardless of policy, Burnham probably has the best emotional intelligence of all the candidates running and was loyal to both Blair and Brown. Miliband shafted his brother and got Blairites sniping at him from day 1 and Balls plotting, Frank Field even told him to his face he should go and bet he would lose!
Yes that emotional intelligence defined in his attitude to the people of Liverpool and Staffordshire and the slight contrast. That will define him for ever, he really should be a non-runner in this race, he will be loyal to anyone if it helps him from Blair to McClusky but as Mike said quite rightly has shown no original thought, like Miliband Burnham would jump from one opportunist band-waggon to another with no long term vision, also like Miliband he is very much Lenny's man and the Conservatives would be all over him just the same.
Most important of all to the middle income, Midlands swing voter Burnham would be a big no that is a certainty. For Labour that should be the main concern.
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
So perhaps a good and moral lefty aspiration would be towards educational excellence? Hard, results based, internationally PISA competitive, top quality educational outcomes should be the religion of a serious lefty. But what do we actually get? Dumbing down, the Blob, prizes for all, Marxist horseshite, 'we must never try any new structures in education - they might work', etc, etc. The left doesn't really give the tiniest little shit about our bad education system. They demonise any truly moral change agents (yes I AM talking about Gove) who seek to improve the outcomes. Fuck the left. They are wrong, hatefilled, spiteful cunZ.
All of which explains why lefty boroughs in London have achieved the most success in turning round their schools since the mid-1990s.
Perhaps Yvette will get a boost, but we haven't got much of a clue of what is going on in the Labour race because no one has done any polling for it for a month or so, were is that Yougov poll for the leadership race? Did it's findings suck so much they filed it?
Oh and as predicted, Labour is turning euroskeptic as a reaction to the war between the EU and Greece, the IN camp is losing it's largest supporters, I can't see how Cameron can win an EU referendum if it's just him and the LD's that support the EU.
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
Did anyone see the mum on Sky news last night
"this might make people wanting bigger families think about whether they could afford them." (I paraphrase).
Suggests job done ?
Absolutely! Best possible change that could have been made. My wife and I had our daughter last year and have discussed when we'd like to have our second and can we afford it. Don't claim a penny in "tax credits" etc but rather pay to the system. I fail to see why we should think about if we can afford more children but those who aren't working shouldn't make the same considerations. That is totally unfair.
1) Reducing the tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages is a sop to young middle class voters that does nothing for the housing market's problems and makes it still harder for those at the bottom. And no, I don't have any buy-to-let mortgages so this isn't special pleading.
Taken together I think the changes announced in the budget do quite a lot to address the housing market's problems. The BTL tax grab is very targeted at amateur landlords on leverage - it won't affect people investing their own capital and it won't affect corporate landlords. Overall it will make investment in housing to rent more attractive for serious players and aid the development of a German style rental sector.
Changing SMI from a benefit to a loan will make banks revise their forbearance policies and remove the stagnating effect this has on the market.
I have failed to make it into work today after over three hours of waiting and hanging around at Shepherds Bush.
Time for the Reagan solution. Sack the lot of them. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would jump at the chance to work for TfL at between £30-35k plus benefits.
A man accused of attacking and robbing a 93-year-old woman in her home has been charged under an ancient law which formerly carried the death penalty.
Graeme Bryden 27, of Stevenston, North Ayrshire, has appeared in court on an allegation of hamesucken.
The centuries-old charge would previously lead to death by hanging for those found guilty of committing the crime. It relates to the act of pursuing someone into their home with the intention of assaulting them.
Just en route to Bristol - very pleased that we have a privatised rail service so that I can use SWT in the absence of FGW service. Just a shame that our trade fair is being held next to BTM and opens on the second day of the strike.
Little public sympathy for striking unions anymore - have to wonder why they bother anymore, should stick to providing legal/advisory representation and behind the scenes. No public desire for mass action in consumer led economy.
Would our resident Andy Burnham fan like to comment on whether he'll be tough on strikes, and tough on the causes of strikes? It would poll well...
Corbyn is now the unions' man
So will Burnham condemn the strikes and the cost to the economy that they cause?
Well as the big Unions have backed Corbyn he has no reason to be beholden to them
"Yes that emotional intelligence defined in his attitude to the people of Liverpool and Staffordshire and the slight contrast. That will define him for ever, he really should be a non-runner in this race, he will be loyal to anyone if it helps him from Blair to McClusky but as Mike said quite rightly has shown no original thought, like Miliband Burnham would jump from one opportunist band-waggon to another with no long term vision, also like Miliband he is very much Lenny's man and the Conservatives would be all over him just the same.
Most important of all to the middle income, Midlands swing voter Burnham would be a big no that is a certainty. For Labour that should be the main concern."
Burnham was not even Health Secretary when Mid Staffs occurred. At present he polls as the most electable candidate so of course he is a runner and did Blair and Cameron ever show much original thought and were they not also opportunists? Unlike Ed Miliband Burnham has not won the unions backing actually, the GMB, Unite and the RMT have backed Corbyn.
You are also wrong on swing voters, after all in the poll I have just posted Burnham has the highest net favourables of all the Labour candidates amongst the public as a whole, the fact Corbyn came last means it cannot be dismissed
I have failed to make it into work today after over three hours of waiting and hanging around at Shepherds Bush.
Time for the Reagan solution. Sack the lot of them. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would jump at the chance to work for TfL at between £30-35k plus benefits.
Everyone is different, but as someone who hasn't got the tube more than a dozen times n the last fifteen years (& even then only the district line) despite working in London for a lot of that time, I think the ease of travel on the tube leads people to think they can't possibly do without it
I'd say not getting the tube has shown me a lot of London ID never have seen otherwise and been a net benefit
Just en route to Bristol - very pleased that we have a privatised rail service so that I can use SWT in the absence of FGW service. Just a shame that our trade fair is being held next to BTM and opens on the second day of the strike.
Little public sympathy for striking unions anymore - have to wonder why they bother anymore, should stick to providing legal/advisory representation and behind the scenes. No public desire for mass action in consumer led economy.
Would our resident Andy Burnham fan like to comment on whether he'll be tough on strikes, and tough on the causes of strikes? It would poll well...
Corbyn is now the unions' man
So will Burnham condemn the strikes and the cost to the economy that they cause?
Well as the big Unions have backed Corbyn he has no reason to be beholden to them
What rot. The big Unions have given Burnham their second vote which is likely to be crucial. Corbyn is an irrelevant sideshow, if its Burnham v Corbyn then Burnham wins; if its Burnham v A.N. Other then Burnham has the Union vote since first preferences would be irrelevant.
Condemning strikes would cost Burnham the Union vote.
Just en route to Bristol - very pleased that we have a privatised rail service so that I can use SWT in the absence of FGW service. Just a shame that our trade fair is being held next to BTM and opens on the second day of the strike.
Little public sympathy for striking unions anymore - have to wonder why they bother anymore, should stick to providing legal/advisory representation and behind the scenes. No public desire for mass action in consumer led economy.
Would our resident Andy Burnham fan like to comment on whether he'll be tough on strikes, and tough on the causes of strikes? It would poll well...
Corbyn is now the unions' man
So will Burnham condemn the strikes and the cost to the economy that they cause?
Well as the big Unions have backed Corbyn he has no reason to be beholden to them
Dodging the question much? How about this one, do you think he should condemn them?
I have failed to make it into work today after over three hours of waiting and hanging around at Shepherds Bush.
Time for the Reagan solution. Sack the lot of them. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would jump at the chance to work for TfL at between £30-35k plus benefits.
Commiserations. Would it be far to walk? If I recall aright (but I may be a-wrong), Reagan had the military guys to fall back on.
I have failed to make it into work today after over three hours of waiting and hanging around at Shepherds Bush.
Time for the Reagan solution. Sack the lot of them. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would jump at the chance to work for TfL at between £30-35k plus benefits.
Commiserations. Would it be far to walk? If I recall aright (but I may be a-wrong), Reagan had the military guys to fall back on.
Just en route to Bristol - very pleased that we have a privatised rail service so that I can use SWT in the absence of FGW service. Just a shame that our trade fair is being held next to BTM and opens on the second day of the strike.
Little public sympathy for striking unions anymore - have to wonder why they bother anymore, should stick to providing legal/advisory representation and behind the scenes. No public desire for mass action in consumer led economy.
Would our resident Andy Burnham fan like to comment on whether he'll be tough on strikes, and tough on the causes of strikes? It would poll well...
Corbyn is now the unions' man
So will Burnham condemn the strikes and the cost to the economy that they cause?
Well as the big Unions have backed Corbyn he has no reason to be beholden to them
What rot. The big Unions have given Burnham their second vote which is likely to be crucial. Corbyn is an irrelevant sideshow, if its Burnham v Corbyn then Burnham wins; if its Burnham v A.N. Other then Burnham has the Union vote since first preferences would be irrelevant.
Condemning strikes would cost Burnham the Union vote.
Only Labour Party members now vote in the Labour leadership election, union members do not automatically have a vote unless they join Labour so who Unions endorse is much less significant
I have failed to make it into work today after over three hours of waiting and hanging around at Shepherds Bush.
Time for the Reagan solution. Sack the lot of them. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would jump at the chance to work for TfL at between £30-35k plus benefits.
Everyone is different, but as someone who hasn't got the tube more than a dozen times n the last fifteen years (& even then only the district line) despite working in London for a lot of that time, I think the ease of travel on the tube leads people to think they can't possibly do without it
I'd say not getting the tube has shown me a lot of London ID never have seen otherwise and been a net benefit
Yeah, there are a couple of ways to get there without the tube, but every single overground train that arrives is packed to the extent that no one can get on and the buses were horrendously packed as well. Just called up and told them I'll work from home in the end. My manager didn't seem bothered given that he was also at home.
Just en route to Bristol - very pleased that we have a privatised rail service so that I can use SWT in the absence of FGW service. Just a shame that our trade fair is being held next to BTM and opens on the second day of the strike.
Little public sympathy for striking unions anymore - have to wonder why they bother anymore, should stick to providing legal/advisory representation and behind the scenes. No public desire for mass action in consumer led economy.
Would our resident Andy Burnham fan like to comment on whether he'll be tough on strikes, and tough on the causes of strikes? It would poll well...
Corbyn is now the unions' man
So will Burnham condemn the strikes and the cost to the economy that they cause?
Well as the big Unions have backed Corbyn he has no reason to be beholden to them
Dodging the question much? How about this one, do you think he should condemn them?
He can put distance between them but it is not sensible to condemn much of your base, Blair never specifically condemned the unions and Cameron never specifically condemned the most hardline anti Europeans and social conservatives in his party either
430 for England. Not bad, but I fear not good enough.
Edit: PS it's good to hear the 3rd umpire (and the TV producers in the background) as they talk through how they make decisions. Gives a good insight into what goes on behind the scenes.
I don't think aspiration has declined at all - benefits as a lifestyle choice is something that is very rare, and represents a minority. In any case, it goes back to the issue of structural, long-term unemployment, occurring in deprived areas. What has declined, is social mobility - the ability of people from working class backgrounds to do well for themselves, over the last couple of decades. That is a problem both related to the education system, and the way our economy works.
Did anyone see the mum on Sky news last night
"this might make people wanting bigger families think about whether they could afford them." (I paraphrase).
Suggests job done ?
Absolutely! Best possible change that could have been made. My wife and I had our daughter last year and have discussed when we'd like to have our second and can we afford it. Don't claim a penny in "tax credits" etc but rather pay to the system. I fail to see why we should think about if we can afford more children but those who aren't working shouldn't make the same considerations. That is totally unfair.
Not sure why Osbo gave people until April 2017, unless he is trying to engineer some sort of baby boom.
Comments
The opportunity he had was to dismantle most of Labour's legacy and keep them out of office for another decade. In that context, he smashed it out of the park (the cricket budget sketch in the Times today is a thing of joy)
Rebecca Long-Bailey @RLong_Bailey · 20h20 hours ago
Today's budget will quite literally rip the rug from under our social housing sector
1. Globalisation and international competitiveness. We can't uninvent the internet or air travel or container shipping etc. Darwinian competition means the lazy or complacent face existensial threats from the clever or hardworking. Indulging the lazy or stupid or unwilling to change merely (and expensively) delays the inevitable - be they individuals, companies or whole countries. You can choose to compete and thrive or you can choose not to compete and accept where that takes you.
2. Massive debt overhangs. We gorged on debt. We lived it large for a while and the deficits seemed not to matter. Now we discover that they do. If you borrow it is reasonable for those who lend to you to expect their money back. Otherwise they'll stop lending. The West, China, Japan, Argentina - you name it, they've geared up. 2015 is the year the world really learns that debt does matter. Really. Viscerally. Brutally. It matters.
3. There's no money left. Recognising 2 above, we are now in a world where ending deficits and repairing balance sheets is unavoidable. Nobody wants to follow Greece. or Venezuela. And this means there can be no public sector largesse. Pennies count. Efficiency matters.
How do you frame a coherent and not instantly destroyable policy package around these truths from a lefty perspective? I have no idea. Osborne clearly sees that the UK's only route to a better future is from the security of competitive advantage. A smaller state, an attractive investment climate, etc. He's right. But how can you promote competitiveness / survival and leftyism at the same time? Is the circle intellectually squarable? The realities of the global economic situation are fundamentally hostile to incoherent spendyism now. This is the real message of the budget for me. Ozzy is lining the UK up to meet the future. And Labour seem to have precisely nothing to say.
Isn't this the kind of 'executive orders' that the GOP are always complaining about now?! Also ironically PATCO endorsed Reagan in the 1980 election, bet they regretted that one...
1) Reducing the tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages is a sop to young middle class voters that does nothing for the housing market's problems and makes it still harder for those at the bottom. And no, I don't have any buy-to-let mortgages so this isn't special pleading.
2) Raising the living wage so steeply is likely to price some people out of jobs who would like to work (though I will note that it should act as an incentive for employers to focus on productivity, which is a good thing). We should be helping people into work, not making it harder for them.
3) Taking tax credits away more than offsets the pay advantages of raising the minimum wage for those that stay in work. We should not be penalising the low paid in work - quite the opposite.
4) And this is special pleading - could pensions please be left alone for five minutes?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33456160
So all of Labour's talk about a NLW was in reality a con? Are their memories so short that they do not know what they advocated? Will be interesting to hear if the Labour leader candidates call it a con. BTW is Harriet in overall charge of Labour's PR at present?
You have to break the link between the automatic delivery of £££ to "da poor" and make it an effort to reward based system.
Want to get ahead ? Vote Labour , work hard and study hard and do the right thing and we will reward you with the tools to get ahead and support you when you want to better your community and family.
They could call it "the big society".
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1324261-analysis-stephen-daisley-on-liz-kendall-and-the-labour-leadership-race/
"Labour is a toddler that has to be told time and again that the cooker is burny but every now and then throws a fit and pulls the scalding pot down around it. May’s rout was the rebuke for another tantrum but the sting lingers in the present leadership contest.
Having driven the grown-ups from the party, Labour faces a starkly unserious field for its top job. Two soft-left continuity candidates compete with a hard-left dreamer and an MP who has only been in Parliament five years. Labour doesn’t look like an alternative government and, what’s worse, it doesn’t seem to care."
"The next Labour leader will be forced to confront four hard realities:
Political. Tony Blair was right about almost everything. Ed Miliband was right about almost nothing. Labour can only win from the centre ground. The Left is electoral wasteland.
Geographical. Labour is no longer a national party and outside London and the North, it is barely a party at all. There are 13 English county councils with not a single Labour MP. The Conservatives had their best night in Wales since 1983. Scotland has nine times as many billionaires as Labour MPs."
No wonder Labourites are so narked.
Such an increase in minimum/living wage is great in the majority of cases business can afford it but what about a loss making pub or shop, some low skilled people may lose jobs.
For starters:
1) Reducing the tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages is a sop to young middle class voters that does nothing for the housing market's problems and makes it still harder for those at the bottom. And no, I don't have any buy-to-let mortgages so this isn't special pleading.
2) Raising the living wage so steeply is likely to price some people out of jobs who would like to work (though I will note that it should act as an incentive for employers to focus on productivity, which is a good thing). We should be helping people into work, not making it harder for them.
3) Taking tax credits away more than offsets the pay advantages of raising the minimum wage for those that stay in work. We should not be penalising the low paid in work - quite the opposite.
4) And this is special pleading - could pensions please be left alone for five minutes?
+1
Also, 83bn spending hike, dividend tax attack on small companies pointlessness of tying IHT tax reduction to property.
All in all, the question is not what the Labour parties attack lines are, but can Osborne actually get this crap through parliament, or will Tory rebels vote it down?
In general on housing I'd have thought the real issue is the lack of supply. But overall I do like the fact that there is focus on raising wages at the bottom end and taxing less, though there is always the issue of unintended consequences of course. It's always seemed daft to me to tax people and then give them some of their own money back to give them enough to live on.
The private sector tends to put on fat in the good times, but rapidly slims when times turn bad - not a good practice really. The same often happens to the public sector, but it has to learn to be efficient at slimming all the time or else it could collapse when times are bad nationally.
GO may be lining up the country to face the future, but many including the unions are still stuck in the 2070s/2080s - we have to teach people to think long term.
I also think Yvette's gender analysis is somewhat limited. It's not that I don't agree with it - I do. But the under 55 demographic of working mums, is one Labour already do well with. The post election data from MORI showed, that Labour had a lead with under 55 women - it was over 55 women, where Labour struggled to gain support. Yvette is preaching to a choir, that already support Labour, and I suspect by 2020 will still support Labour.
As for Darling comment - I think the criticism of nit-picking is unfair. When he says they went far beyond what Labour intended, I suspect he means that tax credits were intended to help the lowest paid, as opposed to developing into some kind of corporate welfare, bring down wages, and with companies in the knowledge that tax credits would prop up wages. And no matter whether you agree with Osborne's long-term aim or not, the fact is that the withdrawal of tax credits, will hurt many out there. I'm most interested to see the IFS' analysis - apparently they'll release a more detailed analysis of budget today.
As for Labour's response to this budget, well currently a collective, cogent response will be difficult because Labour has no leader, and so has no clear direction. I think this is why Osborne decided on a July budget - start off the second term of government by defining the political agenda with the opposition at its most weakest.
Today, the buglers of the local fire service will play "The Last Post" at the Menin Gate, Ypres for the 30,000th time.
The ceremony, which started on 2 July 1928, commemorates the 54,896 Commonwealth soldiers who died fighting Flanders in World War 1 and who have no known grave.
During World War 2 the occupying Germans stopped the ceremony, but as Wikipedia reports "On the evening that Polish forces liberated Ypres in the Second World War, the ceremony was resumed at the Menin Gate despite the fact that heavy fighting was still taking place in other parts of the town."
Can you imagine the scene? Sporadic shots and explosions. The rumble of military vehicles. Then suddenly, the music of the Last Post echoes across the town. I don't know about you, but I find the poignancy of that rather overwhelming.
She probably has a chance to win - in 2025.
2020 looks like a write off for Labour already.
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/dont-let-the-tories-off-the-hook-there-is-an-economic-alternative/
For a start the so called living wage is being introduced over 5 years. It may well cost jobs, ie fewer created. But then we hear people talking about poor productivity - not least Labour. Better productivity by definition means fewer jobs.
But the purpose of this budget is to cut welfare dependency which has grown under Labour and which we cannot afford. It is aimed at increasing wages and ending work subsidies, it is aimed at lowering tax on companies but making them pay for employment and training and it is both now and in the future determined to cut taxes for workers.
Your carping - like Coopers - about hypothetical detail misses out on the glaring inadequacies of 13 years of gross mismanagement and grotesque social engineering by Labour. We ought to criticise that these measures have taken so long to implement, however the shocking economic inheritance left by Labour has encouraged the govt to take its time rather than wreck the economy for doctrinaire reasons. Osborne should be applauded.
If I was on the Titanic commanded by Captain Brown, I would not refuse the request by First Officer Osborne to get into the lifeboat because the seat was wet.
"this might make people wanting bigger families think about whether they could afford them." (I paraphrase).
Suggests job done ?
I acknowledged the positive impact on productivity. But airily wafting away concerns about how the poorest in work will potentially be hard hit is playing up to all the stereotypes about Conservatives.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10475000/London-schools-are-a-UK-education-success-story.html
Now that's a Lefty who demanded high standards and had didn't take any prisoners on the way. He was most inspiring.
The producer interests we have here from the Left are all upside down.
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
2015/16
Gross income: £27,040 (40 * 52 * 6.50 * 2)
Tax: £1,168:
NI: £1,310
Child benefit: £1,789
Tax credits: £2,431
Net income: £28,782
2016/17
Gross income: £29,952 (40 * 52 * 7.20 * 2)
Tax: £1,590
NI: £1,660
Child benefit: £1,789
Tax credits: £0
Net income: £28,491
So it's £291. That's not good, but it's not as bad as Mrs Cooper is claiming.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/08/osborne-class-spite-spin-backlash-budget-cynical-one-nation-fraud
I'm sure that will cause George Osborne sleepless nights.
Not at all. The GOP have no problems with Executive Orders per se, only ones that would extend presidential powers into Congress' domain, usurping their legislative prerogative. What Reagan did was to issue an EO to implement undisputed existing law which the courts upheld. What Obama is doing in, say, the environmental area is right on the line and sometimes over it (based on several defeats in the courts) of using EOs to implement new policies which he has failed to get legislated and which go directly against the wishes of the majority in the House (and sometimes Senate) on these legistlatable issues. quite a difference.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/04/women-budget-cuts-yvette-cooper
hackneyed phrases from the past.
http://www.workingmums.co.uk/yvette-cooper-this-government-is-deeply-unfair-to-women/
Little public sympathy for striking unions anymore - have to wonder why they bother anymore, should stick to providing legal/advisory representation and behind the scenes. No public desire for mass action in consumer led economy.
Would our resident Andy Burnham fan like to comment on whether he'll be tough on strikes, and tough on the causes of strikes? It would poll well...
Not a deal breaker if the economy is feeling alright at the same time, but if we are on a bit of a downturn again and they failed in 10 years to do what they said would take 5, the arguments are harder for them, particularly with newish Labour people to face.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/hardworking-ethnic-minority-pupils-lifting-schools-results-as-london-effect-takes-hold-9854789.html
Tim would have called it getting rid of the thick white racists, others may call it ethnic cleansing
The Trojan horse schools have fantastic academic results
What have young people done to Osborne to deserve such contempt?
Polly Toynbee
This type of dismissal is one where the camera doesn't always tell the truth.
I could do with a good laugh....
Most important of all to the middle income, Midlands swing voter Burnham would be a big no that is a certainty. For Labour that should be the main concern.
If it feels wrong, probably is.
PISA tests show minorities lag.
http://akarlin.com/2012/05/berlin-gets-bad-news-from-pisa/
Who'd have thought it?
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/does-london-have-a-homophobia-problem-within-the-gay-community-10376715.html
Oh and as predicted, Labour is turning euroskeptic as a reaction to the war between the EU and Greece, the IN camp is losing it's largest supporters, I can't see how Cameron can win an EU referendum if it's just him and the LD's that support the EU.
http://www.politico.eu/article/labour-leftists-turn-anti-eu-over-greece-grexit-brexit-referendum-tsipras/
Changing SMI from a benefit to a loan will make banks revise their forbearance policies and remove the stagnating effect this has on the market.
Time for the Reagan solution. Sack the lot of them. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would jump at the chance to work for TfL at between £30-35k plus benefits.
HEAVEN FORFEND
"Yes that emotional intelligence defined in his attitude to the people of Liverpool and Staffordshire and the slight contrast. That will define him for ever, he really should be a non-runner in this race, he will be loyal to anyone if it helps him from Blair to McClusky but as Mike said quite rightly has shown no original thought, like Miliband Burnham would jump from one opportunist band-waggon to another with no long term vision, also like Miliband he is very much Lenny's man and the Conservatives would be all over him just the same.
Most important of all to the middle income, Midlands swing voter Burnham would be a big no that is a certainty. For Labour that should be the main concern."
Burnham was not even Health Secretary when Mid Staffs occurred. At present he polls as the most electable candidate so of course he is a runner and did Blair and Cameron ever show much original thought and were they not also opportunists? Unlike Ed Miliband Burnham has not won the unions backing actually, the GMB, Unite and the RMT have backed Corbyn.
You are also wrong on swing voters, after all in the poll I have just posted Burnham has the highest net favourables of all the Labour candidates amongst the public as a whole, the fact Corbyn came last means it cannot be dismissed
I'd say not getting the tube has shown me a lot of London ID never have seen otherwise and been a net benefit
Condemning strikes would cost Burnham the Union vote.
If I recall aright (but I may be a-wrong), Reagan had the military guys to fall back on.
Edit: PS it's good to hear the 3rd umpire (and the TV producers in the background) as they talk through how they make decisions. Gives a good insight into what goes on behind the scenes.