Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Harry Hayfeld’s Local By-Election Preview : July 9th 2015

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited July 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Harry Hayfeld’s Local By-Election Preview : July 9th 2015


Thorniewood on North Lanarkshire (SNP defence)
Result of council at last election (2012): Labour 41, Scottish National Party 26, Independents 2, Cumbernauld Independent Councillors Alliance 1 (Labour majority of 12)
Result of ward at last election (2012): Emboldened denotes elected
Labour: 1,623, 1,443 (71%)
Scottish National Party: 1,057 (24%)
Conservative:

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    edited July 2015
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    I have this vision of places like Sandwell as viper pits of internal party struggles more vicious than if there were actual opposing parties on the council. It'd be funny for someone else to get on there again (I assume it was not always a complete one party state), so come on UKIP I guess.

    Plaid Cymru and Llais Gwynedd the only candidates in Gwynedd?

    Well, we had a surprise LD gain from Tories last week I think it was, so maybe the SNP can not win something right now, even if its only a council seat.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Busy night for the locals for some reason.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited July 2015

    Vox Populi, Vox Dei

    htps://twitter.com/YouGov/status/619195203128303617

    Maybe I'm being think, but why are the options 'Good idea' and 'wrong priority'? I can envisage things which could be both of those simultaneously.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    That YG polling ought to concentrate the minds of some of our leftie contributors - Are you listening Danny 56 whatever?
  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 606
    I think it will be interesting to see, when the full implications of the cuts are digested, whether or not those figures remain the same.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2015
    felix said:

    That YG polling ought to concentrate the minds of some of our leftie contributors - Are you listening Danny 56 whatever?

    I never said it would be immediately unpopular - I compared it to Brown's 2007 Budget which got an initially good response as people noticed the good things, then later on people suddenly noticed how it was clobbering the low-paid.

    No matter what people think about unemployed people, people REALLY hate the sense that low-paid people in work are being singled out for harsh treatment (people who are "doing the right thing" but just haven't had enough luck), and if Labour are even a semi-decent opposition (a big "if" admittedly) and relentlessly point out the effects of the Budget, I think the perceptions of the Budget will be different by the time the changes take effect.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Good slides from the IFS:

    http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/Budgets 2015/Summer/Crawford_public_finances.pdf

    My favourite bullet point:

    " New fiscal mandate
    – surplus on public sector net borrowing in 2019–20
    – once this is achieved in 2019–20, run a surplus each subsequent year
    as long as the economy remains in ‘normal times "

    I think Osbo has 3 excuses already in the bag:

    Option A - Greece
    Option B - China
    Option C - SNP's fault, if the Daily Mail ran a leader - Alex Salmond was responsible for the fall in world oil prices, I fear many of it's readers would believe it.
    Option D - If all else fails blame it on Labour and their failure to control public spending.

    Is that 3 or 4 excuses, I'm not sure as my crap Scottish education is kicking in again. Can I get a job at the Treasury or the OBR please ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045
    kle4 said:

    Vox Populi, Vox Dei

    htps://twitter.com/YouGov/status/619195203128303617

    Maybe I'm being think, but why are the options 'Good idea' and 'wrong priority'? I can envisage things which could be both of those simultaneously.
    Yes, why not good or bad idea?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    valleyboy said:

    I think it will be interesting to see, when the full implications of the cuts are digested, whether or not those figures remain the same.
    I've always worked on the principle that budgets that are cheered most loudly on the day, are the ones that end up unravelling.

    Who can forget the 2007 budget, when Gordon Brown decided to punch poor people in the knackers to give the middle classes a tax cut being loudly cheered by Labour MPs on the day.

    Ditto the 2012 Omnishambles budget. Led to a period of over 2 years where the Tories didn't lead in the polls.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited July 2015
    By the time the detail of the new settlement hits, the world will have moved on from today.

    Tax credit changes in 2017 can't be measured against whatever the personal tax allowance or living wage is because we don't know the rates and amounts on one side of the equation that far in advance.

    The political danger of banging on incessantly about tax credits is that it emphasises an image of the 'welfare party'; a party that wants everyone on some form of dole.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    Danny565 said:

    felix said:

    That YG polling ought to concentrate the minds of some of our leftie contributors - Are you listening Danny 56 whatever?

    I never said it would be immediately unpopular - I compared it to Brown's 2007 Budget which got an initially good response as people noticed the good things, then later on people suddenly noticed how it was clobbering the low-paid.

    No matter what people think about unemployed people, people REALLY hate the sense that low-paid people in work are being singled out for harsh treatment (people who are "doing the right thing" but just haven't had enough luck), and if Labour are even a semi-decent opposition (a big "if" admittedly) and relentlessly point out the effects of the Budget, I think the perceptions of the Budget will be different by the time the changes take effect.
    The same lower paid people who are going to get a pay rise to £7.20 in April. If these changes were being made without the new minimum wage then I would be in agreement but you completely ignore that part of the budget.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045

    valleyboy said:

    I think it will be interesting to see, when the full implications of the cuts are digested, whether or not those figures remain the same.
    I've always worked on the principle that budgets that are cheered most loudly on the day, are the ones that end up unravelling.

    Who can forget the 2007 budget, when Gordon Brown decided to punch poor people in the knackers to give the middle classes a tax cut being loudly cheered by Labour MPs on the day.

    Ditto the 2012 Omnishambles budget. Led to a period of over 2 years where the Tories didn't lead in the polls.
    The Tories could have been in front the entire time, the polls were just too crap to tell us!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    edited July 2015
    RobD said:

    valleyboy said:

    I think it will be interesting to see, when the full implications of the cuts are digested, whether or not those figures remain the same.
    I've always worked on the principle that budgets that are cheered most loudly on the day, are the ones that end up unravelling.

    Who can forget the 2007 budget, when Gordon Brown decided to punch poor people in the knackers to give the middle classes a tax cut being loudly cheered by Labour MPs on the day.

    Ditto the 2012 Omnishambles budget. Led to a period of over 2 years where the Tories didn't lead in the polls.
    The Tories could have been in front the entire time, the polls were just too crap to tell us!
    True, but the Tories were ahead prior to the Omnishambles budget, then within a few months, it all went horrible like Hannibal at Zama for the Tories.

    Mind you, writing a thread for Sunday, I've found an astonishing polling stat
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    Danny565 said:

    felix said:

    That YG polling ought to concentrate the minds of some of our leftie contributors - Are you listening Danny 56 whatever?

    I never said it would be immediately unpopular - I compared it to Brown's 2007 Budget which got an initially good response as people noticed the good things, then later on people suddenly noticed how it was clobbering the low-paid.

    No matter what people think about unemployed people, people REALLY hate the sense that low-paid people in work are being singled out for harsh treatment (people who are "doing the right thing" but just haven't had enough luck), and if Labour are even a semi-decent opposition (a big "if" admittedly) and relentlessly point out the effects of the Budget, I think the perceptions of the Budget will be different by the time the changes take effect.
    When you say 'people REALLY hate' you mean people like you. It really is time some left-wingers left their bubbles and started listening to real people not the imaginary ones inside the heads of people like Polly Toynbee. Those polling figures are pretty dramatic even for those of us who are very sceptical about polling generally. The problem the left has is a mindset which says yes we support cuts and then vote against them time and time again and show no empathy for the great bulk of the population who aren't part of 'benefits Britain'
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    RobD said:

    valleyboy said:

    I think it will be interesting to see, when the full implications of the cuts are digested, whether or not those figures remain the same.
    I've always worked on the principle that budgets that are cheered most loudly on the day, are the ones that end up unravelling.

    Who can forget the 2007 budget, when Gordon Brown decided to punch poor people in the knackers to give the middle classes a tax cut being loudly cheered by Labour MPs on the day.

    Ditto the 2012 Omnishambles budget. Led to a period of over 2 years where the Tories didn't lead in the polls.
    The Tories could have been in front the entire time, the polls were just too crap to tell us!
    True, but the Tories were ahead prior to the Omnishambles budget, then within a few months, it all went horrible like Hannibal at Zama for the Tories.

    Mind you, writing a thread for Sunday, I've found an astonishing polling stat
    Leadership+the economy.



  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    chestnut said:

    RobD said:

    valleyboy said:

    I think it will be interesting to see, when the full implications of the cuts are digested, whether or not those figures remain the same.
    I've always worked on the principle that budgets that are cheered most loudly on the day, are the ones that end up unravelling.

    Who can forget the 2007 budget, when Gordon Brown decided to punch poor people in the knackers to give the middle classes a tax cut being loudly cheered by Labour MPs on the day.

    Ditto the 2012 Omnishambles budget. Led to a period of over 2 years where the Tories didn't lead in the polls.
    The Tories could have been in front the entire time, the polls were just too crap to tell us!
    True, but the Tories were ahead prior to the Omnishambles budget, then within a few months, it all went horrible like Hannibal at Zama for the Tories.

    Mind you, writing a thread for Sunday, I've found an astonishing polling stat
    Leadership+the economy.



    Only one poll in the three years before election day, had the Tories on 38% or above.

    That poll was in April 2015, by ICM.

    A poll that was rubbished by the likes of May2015 who said ICM should rerun that poll as it was clearly nonsense, as it had the Tories with a 6% lead.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    edited July 2015
    I will also add that all of these calculations on who is going to be worse or better off doesn't take into account wage rises in general, not just in terms of the minimum wage. In a growing economy with jobs being created someone earning £17k per year isn't going to settle for £17.1k the following year, they are going to try and get £17.5k even if it means moving to a new employer.

    I think once wage rises are taken into account across the board, there won't be many people who find themselves worse off.

    We need to drop this idea of a static economy and jobs market.

    Someone who is earning the minimum wage is set to see their wages rise by 6.5% per year. A couple working full time (75h/w between them) would see their gross income rise from £25,350 today to £35,100 in 2020, a full 39% increase in their joint income. If Labour are going to try and attack this as somehow hitting the poor then they had better be prepared to look like idiots.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    I'm not qualified to comment on the welfare reforms, but I'm now officially supporting IDS' reforms, they are anti Papist.

    IDS accused of unfairly targeting Catholics with 'two-child' tax credit policy

    http://ind.pn/1KYQ0yK

  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    I'm not qualified to comment on the welfare reforms, but I'm now officially supporting IDS' reforms, they are anti Papist.

    IDS accused of unfairly targeting Catholics with 'two-child' tax credit policy

    http://ind.pn/1KYQ0yK

    Jeez... No one is stopping them multiplying like rabbits on speed.

    They just have to be aware like everyone else two and it's over. Their faith is fine, feel free, follow your belief just don't expect me and others to pay for it.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    I'm not qualified to comment on the welfare reforms, but I'm now officially supporting IDS' reforms, they are anti Papist.

    IDS accused of unfairly targeting Catholics with 'two-child' tax credit policy

    http://ind.pn/1KYQ0yK

    Has The Orange Order endorsed this policy yet?

  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    CNN news
    In the Last 30 mins Greece has handed over a new reform plan....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    On the whole as I felt at the time the Budget has been broadly well received. However opposition to the public sector pay freeze and scrapping of the maintenance grant and this is where Labour should focus its opposition
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Moses_ said:

    CNN news
    In the Last 30 mins Greece has handed over a new reform plan....

    The crisis will soon be deferred for another 6-12 months, which should be a relief.
  • handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 213
    Labour leadership: for me Jeremy Corbyn is still way too long and Liz way too short. M

    In the absence of professional polling of members, CLP nominations are the best clue we have as to how the voting will go, and JC is now 2nd, behind Andy and ahead of Yvette, with 19 nominations. Liz is miles behind on just 4. While I think you're right to ignore social media polls, I think CLP noms are likely to be much better predictors.

    But, if anything, going purely on CLPs underestimates JC's chances, because non-members such as Greens and TUSC (as well as left-wingers not aligned with any party) are much more likely to sign up to vote for JC, who's offering radical anti-austerity policies, than for more of the same with Burnham or Cooper.

    JC is value at these odds IMO, Liz is still too pricey at 6.

    Disclaimer: I'm still heavily long on JC, slightly green on Yvette & Andy, slightly red on Liz
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Moses_ said:

    CNN news
    In the Last 30 mins Greece has handed over a new reform plan....

    On the back of a fag packet? Or did they go for the beermat this time?
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    Danny565 said:

    ... and if Labour are even a semi-decent opposition (a big "if" admittedly) ....

    Yes, a very, very big "IF".

    It would help if they built a front bench on merit, instead of forcing themselves to have a 50-50 gender split.

    Why do they shoot themselves in the foot like this? It's like Spurs having a policy of always having a quota of local players in the team, even though they are not as good as other players on the bench. (Wait a minute, they do this already - which is why we are crap)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited July 2015

    'FULL STATEMENT FROM THE MANNAN FAMILY IN SYRIA

    We release this statement to confirm that, indeed we are in the Islamic State.

    A land that is free from the corruption and oppression of man made law and is governed by the shariah, the perfect and just laws of Allah subhanAllah wa Ta'la.

    All 12 of us and why should this number be shocking, when there are thousands and thousands of Muslims from all corners of the world that are crossing over land and sea everyday to come to the Islamic State?

    That are willingly leaving the so called freedom and democracy that was forced down our throat in the attempt to brainwash Muslims to forget about their powerful and glorious past and now present.

    Or is it shocking that those attempts have clearly failed? That regardless of being born and bred in the west, the epitome of democracy, our Islam was not washed away? And despite the totalitarian rules that are in place, Muslims are still awaking to their obligations?

    Don't be shocked when we say that none of us were forced against our will. In fact it is outrageous to think that an entire family could be kidnapped and made to migrate like this. It wasn't by the command of a single person in the family but by the command of the Khalifah of the Muslims.

    Who has called all Muslims, whether young or old, single or in families, to make hijrah to the state of Islam. A land that has established the Shariah, in which a Muslim doesn't feel oppression when practising their religion.

    In which a parent doesn't feel the worry of losing their child to the immorality of society. In which the sick and elderly do not wait in agony, tolerating the partiality of race or social class.

    Alhamdulillah for the establishment of the Khilafah.

    We say to those that are concerned for our safety to put your hearts at rest for we feel safer than we have ever felt before.

    We call all Muslims, to rush to the command of your khalif. Race to your state. Race to what will give you honour in this life and the hereafter. Hasten to the obedience of Allah.

    Do not fear losing the life you built for yourselves by making hijrah but fear losing your Imaan and Islam whilst residing in darul kufr and not making hijrah.

    We pray Allah saves from such a fate and guides us all to be obedient to His commands. Ameen.

    The Mannan Family in the Islamic State'

    https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/619246558698012672
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited July 2015
    BBC seems to think that if you cut benefits you're "taking money away" from people.
  • Interesting developments on the EU/civil liberties fronts in the challenge to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 in Regina (Davis MP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Divisional Court (Bean LJ & Collins J) today refused the government's application to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union under article 267 TFEU, on the basis that the law was stated clearly by the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources [2015] QB 127. Judgment on the legality of the 2014 Act will be given next week. The reasonable inference is that the 2014 Act, legislation said by the government to be essential for the preservation of British national security, is going to meet the same fate as the Merchant Shipping Act 1988...
  • handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 213
    AndyJS said:

    BBC seems to think that if you cut benefits you're "taking money away" from people.

    In that you're reducing their incomes, of course you are...

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited July 2015

    AndyJS said:

    BBC seems to think that if you cut benefits you're "taking money away" from people.

    In that you're reducing their incomes, of course you are...

    No, completely wrong. Income comes from working. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. And I'm probably slightly to the left of the average voter.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    BBC seems to think that if you cut benefits you're "taking money away" from people.

    In that you're reducing their incomes, of course you are...

    No, completely wrong. Income comes from working. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. And I'm probably slightly to the left of the average voter.
    The people they're taking money away from ARE working, for the most part.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AndyJS said:

    BBC seems to think that if you cut benefits you're "taking money away" from people.

    One thing Osborne missed was to rename Tax Credits as "Supplementary Benefit" or similar.

  • Danny565 said:

    The people they're taking money away from ARE working, for the most part.

    Does inheritance tax take money away from people?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Drachma sighted in Athens:

    Bloomberg - First Sighting of Drachma in the Wild, Via Credit-Card Mystery http://bloom.bg/1HQ8Nxg
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    BBC seems to think that if you cut benefits you're "taking money away" from people.

    In that you're reducing their incomes, of course you are...

    No, completely wrong. Income comes from working. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. And I'm probably slightly to the left of the average voter.
    It's taking money away, not income, if we define income as money people earned, vs benefits being money people are given (deservingly or not being a separate matter).
  • handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 213
    One thing I'm surprised I don't hear more about is the impact of the changes on the smallest employers: the sole trader who's looking at moving into becoming an employer for the first time.

    Compared with maintaining or increasing tax credits, Increasing the minimum wage increases the baseline costs of taking on a new employee. Doesn't this raise barriers to competition with large firms that have economies of scale on their side?
  • kle4 said:

    It's taking money away, not income, if we define income as money people earned, vs benefits being money people are given (deservingly or not being a separate matter).

    It can only be defined as taking money away if you take the view that when Parliament creates a benefit or other subsidy, every person has a legitimate expectation that Parliament will maintain not only the benefit, but the conditions of entitlement and the rate at which it is paid, until the end of time. No such expectation is legitimate, and prospectively reducing welfare benefits cannot properly be described as "taking money away from people", whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    The Labour leadership race’s dynamic has shifted to the advantage of Jeremy Corbyn, with the endorsement of Unite, which has both financial and political clout.

    Victory for the left-winger remains improbable, though not impossible. A strong showing, with one Labour shadow cabinet member predicting that Corbyn will be the runner-up, would compel the new leader to offer a post to the rebellious candidate of the party’s Syriza wing. Corbyn is aware that Diane Abbott was made a middling public health spokeswoman after the last leadership contest before Ed Miliband sacked her for disloyalty. The anti-Trident Corbyn has mused that he would take the defence post. The race’s fallout could be considerable.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/commons-confidential-tom-and-jerry-corbyn-effect-and-rumours-bottle-blond-boris
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    kle4 said:

    It's taking money away, not income, if we define income as money people earned, vs benefits being money people are given (deservingly or not being a separate matter).

    It can only be defined as taking money away if you take the view that when Parliament creates a benefit or other subsidy, every person has a legitimate expectation that Parliament will maintain not only the benefit, but the conditions of entitlement and the rate at which it is paid, until the end of time. No such expectation is legitimate, and prospectively reducing welfare benefits cannot properly be described as "taking money away from people", whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy.

    True. But "reducing welfare benefit" isn't quite as polemic as "stealing much-loved candy from poor defenceless babies".

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    Danny565 said:

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    BBC seems to think that if you cut benefits you're "taking money away" from people.

    In that you're reducing their incomes, of course you are...

    No, completely wrong. Income comes from working. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. And I'm probably slightly to the left of the average voter.
    The people they're taking money away from ARE working, for the most part.
    No, it is an entitlement reduction. Whether they work or not is not relevant for the most part. The money people earn by working is going to increase if they are on the minimum wage, and they will keep more of it because of allowance changes. A benefit cut is not a tax. The last time Labour tried to do this it failed. It may have set Twatter alight and spawned a thousand buzzfeed and huffpo articles but the "bedroom tax" all of zero impact in the real world. Most people were in favour of it with a few exceptions. If Labour are going to judge the public mood by flawed online polling and twatter then so be it, but we all saw what happened in 2015 when Ed did just that.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,303

    Drachma sighted in Athens:

    Bloomberg - First Sighting of Drachma in the Wild, Via Credit-Card Mystery http://bloom.bg/1HQ8Nxg

    A large number of receipts in France still print the Franc equivalent price. I don't think it's significant.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    I'm hearing the EU has folded like a cheap suit to Tsipras' proposals...

    Source is a Greek friend.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,952

    kle4 said:

    It's taking money away, not income, if we define income as money people earned, vs benefits being money people are given (deservingly or not being a separate matter).

    It can only be defined as taking money away if you take the view that when Parliament creates a benefit or other subsidy, every person has a legitimate expectation that Parliament will maintain not only the benefit, but the conditions of entitlement and the rate at which it is paid, until the end of time. No such expectation is legitimate, and prospectively reducing welfare benefits cannot properly be described as "taking money away from people", whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy.

    True. But "reducing welfare benefit" isn't quite as polemic as "stealing much-loved candy from poor defenceless babies".

    The Labour Govt 1997-2010 was egregiously guilty of handing out money to the most vulnerable at levels that were patently unsustainable. If people are suffering now, it is down to Labour falsely raising their expectations, in the callous knowledge that at some point another party would have to redress that. Their trying to make political capital from that qualifies them for a bloody hard slap on the face with an enormo-haddock.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Drachma sighted in Athens:

    Bloomberg - First Sighting of Drachma in the Wild, Via Credit-Card Mystery http://bloom.bg/1HQ8Nxg

    A large number of receipts in France still print the Franc equivalent price. I don't think it's significant.
    But this was not the Drachma equivalent, it was the same number as it would have been in Euros, assuming a 1:1 exchange rate. A rate that would last about a nano-second!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited July 2015

    kle4 said:

    It's taking money away, not income, if we define income as money people earned, vs benefits being money people are given (deservingly or not being a separate matter).

    It can only be defined as taking money away if you take the view that when Parliament creates a benefit or other subsidy, every person has a legitimate expectation that Parliament will maintain not only the benefit, but the conditions of entitlement and the rate at which it is paid, until the end of time. No such expectation is legitimate, and prospectively reducing welfare benefits cannot properly be described as "taking money away from people", whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy.
    I'm not opposed to to it being removed, but not everyone talks or thinks legalistically - people who were receiving money will receive less, so in a colloquial sense it is being 'taken away', it's just not necessarily unreasonable to do so as it was not truly theirs but a subsidy provided by the state, and it may not have been reasonable or affordable to continue giving it.

    As I say, I'm not opposed to it, but even as uncareful language is indeed used to tug on peoples' emotions to get them angry about removing something, so outrage at that attempt at manipulation can get so overblown (particularly where no one is really getting that mad because of the slant in terminology) used I think people need to calm down at some of that uncareful language, as it can just be bloody irritating. Yes, even when it is blatant - I support the idea of the bedroom tax, and I don't have to insist on calling it what it actually is to do so. I'm not even saying don't object or point out if something is incorrect, but it's not always unreasonable for people to mix things up, and all sides rename things to try to gain partisan advantage from it, so some of those (I said, 'some' not all or all on here!) who get upset at it have no right to complain.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    MaxPB said:

    Danny565 said:

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    BBC seems to think that if you cut benefits you're "taking money away" from people.

    In that you're reducing their incomes, of course you are...

    No, completely wrong. Income comes from working. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. And I'm probably slightly to the left of the average voter.
    The people they're taking money away from ARE working, for the most part.
    No, it is an entitlement reduction. Whether they work or not is not relevant for the most part. The money people earn by working is going to increase if they are on the minimum wage, and they will keep more of it because of allowance changes. A benefit cut is not a tax. The last time Labour tried to do this it failed. It may have set Twatter alight and spawned a thousand buzzfeed and huffpo articles but the "bedroom tax" all of zero impact in the real world. Most people were in favour of it with a few exceptions. If Labour are going to judge the public mood by flawed online polling and twatter then so be it, but we all saw what happened in 2015 when Ed did just that.
    Do you actually know anyone affected by the bedroom tax?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Hey, look. A betting market...

    @LadPolitics: Could any of these be the new BBC Political Editor?
    10/1 @joeyjonessky
    33/1 @IsabelHardman
    33/1 @stephenkb http://t.co/OH9l10ZsnS
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    BBC seems to think that if you cut benefits you're "taking money away" from people.

    In that you're reducing their incomes, of course you are...

    No, completely wrong. Income comes from working. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. And I'm probably slightly to the left of the average voter.
    Of course, no-one can predict their income 18 years and nine months hence.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    kle4 said:

    It's taking money away, not income, if we define income as money people earned, vs benefits being money people are given (deservingly or not being a separate matter).

    It can only be defined as taking money away if you take the view that when Parliament creates a benefit or other subsidy, every person has a legitimate expectation that Parliament will maintain not only the benefit, but the conditions of entitlement and the rate at which it is paid, until the end of time. No such expectation is legitimate, and prospectively reducing welfare benefits cannot properly be described as "taking money away from people", whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy.

    True. But "reducing welfare benefit" isn't quite as polemic as "stealing much-loved candy from poor defenceless babies".

    The Labour Govt 1997-2010 was egregiously guilty of handing out money to the most vulnerable at levels that were patently unsustainable. If people are suffering now, it is down to Labour falsely raising their expectations, in the callous knowledge that at some point another party would have to redress that. Their trying to make political capital from that qualifies them for a bloody hard slap on the face with an enormo-haddock.
    Again, this is a perfectly respectable argument, but it's a completely different one to the claims yesterday that low-paid workers were going to be made better off. They clearly won't.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm hearing the EU has folded like a cheap suit to Tsipras' proposals...

    Source is a Greek friend.

    Is your Greek friend Tsipras? :p
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm hearing the EU has folded like a cheap suit to Tsipras' proposals...

    Source is a Greek friend.

    Is your Greek friend Tsipras? :p
    As long as one condition of the bailout that all members of Syrizia have to wear ties when appearing in public. I am fed up with these sartorially challenged Trotskyite clowns.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm hearing the EU has folded like a cheap suit to Tsipras' proposals...

    Source is a Greek friend.

    I would not be in the least bit surprised. They have no moral requirement to fold, despite the ludicrous rhetoric about democratic mandates (which applied only to the Greek government, giving them a mandate to seek a better deal, not impose an obligation for everyone else to offer a better deal if they did not want to), but at the end of the day they probably thought the Greek people would blink first, and they are reluctant to carry through on their threats, so it may be time for the EU to blink.

    Are the German's softening their stance yet? I assume a statement out soon will be all 'welcome new proposals, much to consider in coming days' etc, regardless of whether a deal is coming or not.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    UKIP lady on Question Time: "Without tax credits, I couldn't have fed my children"
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    UKIP spokesman on #BBCQT saying we should have a £9 NMW now rather than in five years time. Yes, bankrupt businesses by enforcing a 50% increase immediately.

    UKIP continue transitioning far to the left of Labour. No bandwagon they won't jump on?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Danny565 said:

    UKIP lady on Question Time: "Without tax credits, I couldn't have fed my children"

    She looks as if she has eaten well over the years!
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm hearing the EU has folded like a cheap suit to Tsipras' proposals...

    Source is a Greek friend.

    There's a shock, been saying it for weeks.

    Watching QT, Anna Soubry scrubs up well!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm hearing the EU has folded like a cheap suit to Tsipras' proposals...

    Source is a Greek friend.

    There's a shock, been saying it for weeks.

    Watching QT, Anna Soubry scrubs up well!
    I used to enjoy her gesticulating from the back benches during PMQs. No longer, unfortunately!
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2015
    Even Boris Johnson's sister saying "George Osborne went for the working poor"

    (Couldn't work out if she was in favour or opposed)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045
    Danny565 said:

    Even Boris Johnson's sister saying "George Osborne went for the working poor"

    Stop the presses!!!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    Danny565 said:

    Even Boris Johnson's sister saying "George Osborne went for the working poor"

    (Couldn't work out if she was in favour or opposed)

    Put it another way, Boris Johnson's sister goes after her brother's top rival for the Tory leadership
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Question Time is an embarrassment.

    On the one hand you have the SNP/Labour public sector welfarists who don't give damn about the 80% + who work in the private sector, and on the other you have the very wealthy pretending they understand the vast majority's circumstances.



  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Rachel Johnson clearly under orders from Boris to bash Osborne. Soubry the best so far
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    Even Boris Johnson's sister saying "George Osborne went for the working poor"

    (Couldn't work out if she was in favour or opposed)

    Put it another way, Boris Johnson's sister goes after her brother's top rival for the Tory leadership
    LOL, good point :D

    I'll await her subtle dig at Theresa May.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Danny565 said:

    Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).

    I agree. Never seen him perform so well. Backing Ms Kendall as I recall.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    Another Nat with a great understanding of numbers and democracy

    https://twitter.com/ibigdazz/status/618940752400396288
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Even Boris Johnson's sister saying "George Osborne went for the working poor"

    (Couldn't work out if she was in favour or opposed)

    Put it another way, Boris Johnson's sister goes after her brother's top rival for the Tory leadership
    LOL, good point :D

    I'll await her subtle dig at Theresa May.
    No need, Ms May will never be Tory leader
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045

    Another Nat with a great understanding of numbers and democracy

    https://twitter.com/ibigdazz/status/618940752400396288

    I quite enjoy his twitter banner picture. Is that Call me Dave leading the charge?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    UKIP spokesman on #BBCQT saying we should have a £9 NMW now rather than in five years time. Yes, bankrupt businesses by enforcing a 50% increase immediately.

    UKIP continue transitioning far to the left of Labour. No bandwagon they won't jump on?

    She did say UKIP would slash overseas aid instead
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Even Boris Johnson's sister saying "George Osborne went for the working poor"

    (Couldn't work out if she was in favour or opposed)

    Put it another way, Boris Johnson's sister goes after her brother's top rival for the Tory leadership
    LOL, good point :D

    I'll await her subtle dig at Theresa May.
    No need, Ms May will never be Tory leader
    TMWNBTL?

    Nah.. nothing can beat EMWNBPM....
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Has Louise Bours defected to Syrizia? She wants free everything!
  • UKIP spokesman on #BBCQT saying we should have a £9 NMW now rather than in five years time. Yes, bankrupt businesses by enforcing a 50% increase immediately.

    UKIP wage fixing now: bad. Tory wage fixing later: good. The partisans on here are superb entertainment at times.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    This UKIP woman is absolutely bonkers, would fit in with any socialist party. Absolutely loon.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    This UKIP woman is absolutely bonkers, would fit in with any socialist party. Absolutely loon.

    They would have earache in no time. Louise Bours makes that bonkers Scottish UKIP MEP seem sane.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    RobD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Even Boris Johnson's sister saying "George Osborne went for the working poor"

    (Couldn't work out if she was in favour or opposed)

    Put it another way, Boris Johnson's sister goes after her brother's top rival for the Tory leadership
    LOL, good point :D

    I'll await her subtle dig at Theresa May.
    No need, Ms May will never be Tory leader
    TMWNBTL?

    Nah.. nothing can beat EMWNBPM....
    BJWNBPM
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    UKIP spokesman on #BBCQT saying we should have a £9 NMW now rather than in five years time. Yes, bankrupt businesses by enforcing a 50% increase immediately.

    UKIP wage fixing now: bad. Tory wage fixing later: good. The partisans on here are superb entertainment at times.
    A marginal change in national minimum wage as part of an overall package including reductions in tax credits and reductions in Corporation Tax is good.

    A 50% increase in national minimum wage with no reduction in tax credits introduced immediately is absurd.
  • GazGaz Posts: 45
    That UKIP woman is toxic to Labour. They dont realise that position she holds on overseas aid is the one that youll get in nodding agreement on 80% of doorsteps of a council estate.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Tommy Shepherd is a racist!
  • There's an interesting story in the FT this evening, suggesting the government is at last thinking about doing something to the Soviet-style planning system in England. Apparently, legislation is to be introduced allowing for automatic planning permission on designated brownfield land. Moreover, ministers will be given the power to impose housing plans on recalcitrant local authorities, and fine those which fail expeditiously to process applications for planning permission.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited July 2015
    MaxPB said:

    Danny565 said:

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    BBC seems to think that if you cut benefits you're "taking money away" from people.

    In that you're reducing their incomes, of course you are...

    No, completely wrong. Income comes from working. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. And I'm probably slightly to the left of the average voter.
    The people they're taking money away from ARE working, for the most part.
    No, it is an entitlement reduction. Whether they work or not is not relevant for the most part. The money people earn by working is going to increase if they are on the minimum wage, and they will keep more of it because of allowance changes. A benefit cut is not a tax. The last time Labour tried to do this it failed. It may have set Twatter alight and spawned a thousand buzzfeed and huffpo articles but the "bedroom tax" all of zero impact in the real world. Most people were in favour of it with a few exceptions. If Labour are going to judge the public mood by flawed online polling and twatter then so be it, but we all saw what happened in 2015 when Ed did just that.
    I'm not a fan of calling it the "bedroom tax" but as disingenuous as that is, I can't blame Labour spinners for trying it for size and sticking with it because it sounded catchy. (My bigger problem with Labour is that when in power they did something similar for those on benefits but in private rather than social accommodation, if I recall correctly. If the "bedroom tax" is such a grave ill, they owe us all a mea maxima culpa and they ought to promise to undo their previous policy too.)

    I just can't wrap my head around the "bedroom tax" all of zero impact in the real world - where did you get this idea from? For many of the people it affected, who tended to be living a lifestyle based on very tight budgets, it has had a serious impact. Although in principle it encouraged downsizing, in practice suitable accommodation was rarely available. Besides, if you're such a fan of the policy, sure you can see that if it really was of "zero impact" (because it didn't affect anybody, or didn't save any money, or didn't encourage any downsizing) then it was utterly pointless?

    (I also don't buy "Most people were in favour of it with a few exceptions" - where is your evidence for that? Polling? We all know that polling has its flaws but it still beats anecdotal evidence "Few exceptions" is surely hyperbole?)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Gaz said:

    That UKIP woman is toxic to Labour. They dont realise that position she holds on overseas aid is the one that youll get in nodding agreement on 80% of doorsteps of a council estate.

    You would get the same nodding agreement from most ex colonels and majors in the shires too and most professionals in the suburbs, Tory and LD voters are also quite likely to agree with that policy
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Gaz said:

    That UKIP woman is toxic to Labour. They dont realise that position she holds on overseas aid is the one that youll get in nodding agreement on 80% of doorsteps of a council estate.

    Exactly right, 80% is probably on the low side
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Gaz said:

    That UKIP woman is toxic to Labour. They dont realise that position she holds on overseas aid is the one that youll get in nodding agreement on 80% of doorsteps of a council estate.

    It is astonishing that the UKIP health spokesperson did not know student nurses are trained on the wards.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Danny565 said:

    Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).

    He is performing much as he normally does to me, relatively smooth a bit too slick, Soubry best on the panel. Umunna was the candidate I originally thought would make the best Labour leader until he dropped out, he may well have missed his chance now. He would make a good Shadow Foreign Secretary though and do the job well in government, which he may well get
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).

    He is performing much as he normally does to me, relatively smooth a bit too slick, Soubry best on the panel. Umunna was the candidate I originally thought would make the best Labour leader until he dropped out, he may well have missed his chance now. He would make a good Shadow Foreign Secretary though and do the job well in government, which he may well get
    You don't think that he'll be able to stand in Labour's 2020 Leadership election?
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Gaz said:

    That UKIP woman is toxic to Labour. They dont realise that position she holds on overseas aid is the one that youll get in nodding agreement on 80% of doorsteps of a council estate.

    She might be a bit nuts but she comes across as much more normal than your average politician with all their media training.

    A bit like watching Paul Merson on Soccer. Saturday
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981

    Gaz said:

    That UKIP woman is toxic to Labour. They dont realise that position she holds on overseas aid is the one that youll get in nodding agreement on 80% of doorsteps of a council estate.

    She might be a bit nuts but she comes across as much more normal than your average politician with all their media training.

    A bit like watching Paul Merson on Soccer. Saturday
    Yeah, but who is UKIP's Chris Kamara?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Louise Bours reminds me a little of a second hand version of Kathy Burke
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    So, Tsipras, having faffed around for months, and having pushed the Greek economy into near-total collapse, has now given in completely to the demands rejected by the Greek population last Sunday, and indeed to more.

    I think it's pretty optimistic to assume that this is going to get past his own party, not to mention the difficulty of getting the whole package endorsed by the other Eurozone countries at this late stage.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651

    Gaz said:

    That UKIP woman is toxic to Labour. They dont realise that position she holds on overseas aid is the one that youll get in nodding agreement on 80% of doorsteps of a council estate.

    It is astonishing that the UKIP health spokesperson did not know student nurses are trained on the wards.
    Sometimes politicians reiterate what they know to be rubbish because they realise it will resonate will the general public who have heard a similar flavour of nonsense second or third-hand, have no practical experience of the matter in question, and certainly won't have slogged through the diet of briefing papers, reports and conferences that a well-briefed politician must have endured.

    Sometimes politicians reiterate rubbish because it's just the kind of nonsense they heard second- or third-hand themselves, and because they have no practical experience and haven't done the hard slog.

    The lack of practical experience is a common problem across all parties but UKIP seem to have particular difficulty with the hard slog. Inexperience? Paucity of talent? I sometimes wonder if they are so far from the outskirts of power that they simply can't identify credible sources, and don't even know what to bone up on or where to turn to get to grips with it.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    £9 an hour minimum wage is €13 an hour minimum wage.

    What does she think that will do to EU immigration?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    chestnut said:

    £9 an hour minimum wage is €13 an hour minimum wage.

    What does she think that will do to EU immigration?

    If we get more good migrants doing good jobs and paying good taxes while claiming no benefits then I'd say that's a good thing. Wouldn't you?
  • A marginal change in national minimum wage as part of an overall package including reductions in tax credits and reductions in Corporation Tax is good.

    A 50% increase in national minimum wage with no reduction in tax credits introduced immediately is absurd.

    Tax credits are not paid by employers, but out of the Consolidated Fund. The cut in corporation tax is marginal, and does not, of course, apply to all employers, and many of those to which it does have also been hit by reforms to the taxation of dividends and corporations sole. The Conservatives' policy is not, in any event, a marginal change in the national minimum wage, since it is contrary to the policy of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, that the rate should be set on the advice the Low Pay Commission having regard to the effect on competitiveness (see s. 7(5)(a) of the 1998 Act).
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Chuka Umunna has become so much more impressive since he dropped out of the leadership contest (ironically enough).

    He is performing much as he normally does to me, relatively smooth a bit too slick, Soubry best on the panel. Umunna was the candidate I originally thought would make the best Labour leader until he dropped out, he may well have missed his chance now. He would make a good Shadow Foreign Secretary though and do the job well in government, which he may well get
    You don't think that he'll be able to stand in Labour's 2020 Leadership election?
    I spoke with an ex-Labour MP about why he dropped out, doesn't take too much imagination and I don't see why that would have changed by 2020.

    Agree he has been impressive tonight.
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    Re: reduction of CTC to first two children.
    Seeing vox pops on this it really seems to have got people thinking about whether they really can afford a larger family.
    The result of this is that fewer children will be born directly into "poverty" - however you choose to measure it. Surely a good thing?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    chestnut said:

    £9 an hour minimum wage is €13 an hour minimum wage.

    What does she think that will do to EU immigration?

    If we get more good migrants doing good jobs and paying good taxes while claiming no benefits then I'd say that's a good thing. Wouldn't you?
    Are minimum wage jobs good jobs?

    It's cretinous to put one of the highest minimum wages in Europe into action if you are trying to cut immigration.
Sign In or Register to comment.