Twitter reporting that Jeremy Corbyn received two further nominations last night from Norwich North and Great Yarmouth CLP, taking Corbyn’s lead over leadership rival and favourite Andy Burnham by 57 votes to 52.
"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......
She has 3 choices: abortion, putting the child up for adoption or keeping it. Same as anyone else who finds themself pregnant unexpectedly.
"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......
She has 3 choices: abortion, putting the child up for adoption or keeping it. Same as anyone else who finds themself pregnant unexpectedly.
The Government is making provision for child benefit still to be given when the third child is the product of rape "or in other exceptional circumstances". Despite the fact that this will presumably cover a handful of cases a year, if that, the Mirror still managed to run a full page article about how women in such circumstances would be placed in a disgraceful position.
Whatever one's views on the reform, it looks like the most monumental red herring to me.
What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.
That's all true, but a lot of Tories seem to be forgetting that their win was only secured because some very reluctant people switched at the very last minute. That doesn't make their win any less "deserved", but nonetheless it is hardly a rock-solid support base which guarantees them wins for years to come.
Is 30% of the vote a rock-solid support base for Labour?
No, but nobody is saying Labour are a shoo-in for the next election like many hubristic Tories are saying.
In fairness, when some depressed Labourites are saying the Tories are a shoo-in for the next election as well (if Labour make the 'wrong' decision now, whatever they decide that is), it's not surprising there is a measure of hubris on the Tory side too.
I think the Tories would be wise to recognise they did well and the system favoured them this time, but they cannot be complacent by any means even if Labour elect a duffer as leader, but the other extreme of 'the people were fooled!' is unhelpful without even commenting on how insulting it is, though thankfully not a widespread view.
"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......
She has 3 choices: abortion, putting the child up for adoption or keeping it. Same as anyone else who finds themself pregnant unexpectedly.
I see the old "Frenchgate" nonsense is being taken out for another stagger by the usual suspects.
Silly people :-).
Sturgeon and the SNP's attitude is entirely rational and entirely what they say it is/was.
They would have preferred to have had maximum influence at Westminster which a hung parliament would have conferred. That did not happen, so they will exploit the genuinely ridiculous situation of one Tory in effect outvoting 56 SNP members on matters affecting Scotland.
Do try and understand, usual suspects, it really isn't hard :-)
Personally I don't care if the LibDems choose political annihilation in Scotland by not facing up to the reality of the Carmichael situation - but surely the results of the poll below must carry some weight with Farron:
" The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71% Should not resign: 14% Don’t know: 15% "
Farron has an opportunity to overrule the self-interested Scottish LibDem party machine and be seen to do the right thing. For what it's worth I think a candidate like Jo Swinson would have a good chance of winning a O&S by-election, effectively giving the LibDems the impression of winning a seat even though it doesn't add to their total and possibly give them some momentum for May 2016 council and Scottish elections.
"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......
She has 3 choices: abortion, putting the child up for adoption or keeping it. Same as anyone else who finds themself pregnant unexpectedly.
Wans't it mentioned on budget day that there would be exceptions for rape and multiple births?
"Yes, let's mention the 5 years he spent fighting them for starters."
Corozin 18m ago
The only impact Prince Phillip has at his age is to influence people like Jones to get all uppity and offended and writing pointless, vacuous articles like this one.
But then with the Labour party elections turning into an episode of The Simpsons, perhaps we can excuse the poor boy this one.
"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......
She has 3 choices: abortion, putting the child up for adoption or keeping it. Same as anyone else who finds themself pregnant unexpectedly.
"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......
She has 3 choices: abortion, putting the child up for adoption or keeping it. Same as anyone else who finds themself pregnant unexpectedly.
Wans't it mentioned on budget day that there would be exceptions for rape and multiple births?
I had heard about multiple births but not rape.
the "red prince" Stephen Kinnock thinks this is a fundamental problem.
"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......
She has 3 choices: abortion, putting the child up for adoption or keeping it. Same as anyone else who finds themself pregnant unexpectedly.
Back after some work and coffee splutters onto my screen!!!!!
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.
The Tories have a lot to be grateful to the Lib Dems for. Before the Coalition Government, the Tories were not known for their competence and leadership, Mr Fear.
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.
The Tories have a lot to be grateful to the Lib Dems for. Before the Coalition Government, the Tories were not known for their competence and leadership, Mr Fear.
Pretty sure that no matter your politics, Thatcher was seen as the embodiment of a strong leader.
Farron has an opportunity to overrule the self-interested Scottish LibDem party machine and be seen to do the right thing. For what it's worth I think a candidate like Jo Swinson would have a good chance of winning a O&S by-election, effectively giving the LibDems the impression of winning a seat even though it doesn't add to their total and possibly give them some momentum for May 2016 council and Scottish elections.
I would definitely back at the bookies Jo Swinson in a O&S bye-election.
I agree with this article. Tax credits did not feature a great deal in the election campaign, and to the extent that they did Cameron appeared - in the Dimbleby Question Time session - to commit the Tories to not withdrawing them. Labour can reasonably accuse them of a broken promise here - no reason at all for Harman to go on the defensive.
Ms Zamir, who founded the Chadwell Heath Asian Women's Network which meets at the centre, said: 'The Duke said to us "who do you sponge off?" We're all married so it's our husbands.
'He was just teasing and it's similar to what I call my husband - the wallet.'...
....As well as joking with the group of women, the Duke of Edinburgh also poked fun at resident Martin Shaw.
He explained: 'I told Philip I'm a professional fundraiser and he said "do you have any friends left?" I said 'not many'.'
Anyone suggesting that Labour cannot won the next election is a fool. They do however seem surprisingly keen on presenting themselves as a tribute act to the Conservatives circ 1998.
As for the article above, keep on taking the meds.
I'm talking my own book, but I think Yvette Cooper is too long in the Labour leadership market at present. She is very well-placed to pick up preferences.
I've more or less decided to vote for her, and have recommended her to the Broxtowe membership.
Off to California, Las Vegas, and a board games convention in Peensylvania tomorrow - first long holiday I've had for about 6 years. This not being obsessed with politics stuff is growing on me.
It may be churlish to point out that at the BBC was Don Brind a Labour supporter and John Cole a chap who was on the left as evidenced by his deputy editorship of The Guardian and The Observer . Cole always identified with the Labour Party. (wikipedia).
Now where are all those deniers of BBC being stuffed full of lefties?
Sssht! We've been told by posters like SO that left-wing bias at the BBC doesn't exist.
Not to mention Andrew Neil that famous lefty.
Sigh, lefties can always be relied on to wheel out Brillo to excuse the hundreds of Liberal elite lefties the BBC employs. Can you name 5 other right wingers ? 3 maybe ?
The BBC spans from centrist Tories to far left Greens. Can anyone name a single right wing Tory or UKIP supporter there?
I'm talking my own book, but I think Yvette Cooper is too long in the Labour leadership market at present. She is very well-placed to pick up preferences.
I've more or less decided to vote for her, and have recommended her to the Broxtowe membership.
What was it that made up your mind in the end? I'm still on the fence between her and Andy.
I'm talking my own book, but I think Yvette Cooper is too long in the Labour leadership market at present. She is very well-placed to pick up preferences.
I've more or less decided to vote for her, and have recommended her to the Broxtowe membership.
Off to California, Las Vegas, and a board games convention in Peensylvania tomorrow - first long holiday I've had for about 6 years. This not being obsessed with politics stuff is growing on me.
I don’t see how Liz Kendall is well to the left of UK electorate. Kendall is arguably far more to the right than Tony Blair was in 1994. Certainly her opinions on public service provision, while in line with Conservative-thinking aren’t even in step with public opinion at all – for example, her openness regarding private sector involvement in public services and her openness towards the idea of free schools. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that particular policy is popular with the public. On defence spending (she wants to increase it) she’d also be well to right in regard to the British public. While some will sight her positions on IHT, and trade unions, I suspect the former is more proof of her realisation that she has to reach out to Labour members, than her actual position. Kendall acceptance of the Tories’ position on welfare would at the very least put her in the centre of British politics.
I don’t quite buy that the election was a ‘triumph for Tory values’. In general, the Tories were pretty vague about what they would do if given a majority, and much their pledges were unfunded. They generally didn’t specify where cuts (particularly in welfare) would exactly be, either. Where the Tories have won the debate, is in regard to out of work benefits, and that is where a large amount of people’s disgruntlement about welfare has come from. I’m not so sure – and have no seen no evidence – that people feel the same way about low-income earners. Indeed, a lot of Conservative rhetoric in the last five years has been about the deserving and undeserving poor – distinguished between the unemployed, welfare dependent poor, and the in-work, low earning poor. Much of their welfare changes, if anything actually goes against that argument. It’s very easy to adopt a certain ‘tough’ position on welfare when it doesn’t affect you. I’m sure it’s great for people to feel self-reliant and not dependent on the state (in regard to low-income earners) – when wages make up for what you would have received in tax credits. But when there is nothing to make up for that shortfall, I wonder how low-income earners feel then.
But I suspect the more IDS’ changes to welfare effects a larger group of people, the more it will become a politically controversial issue for the Tories. Recently, IDS introduced an idea of workers paying their own sick pay, and unemployment benefit (which is what I thought NI was for, but apparently Osborne wants to scrap that). If that idea is something which the Tories push on with, it’s a whole new ball game, as welfare changes begin to affect many people, as opposed a minority in which many can turn a blind eye to.
Also, If we are to believe recent polling – and given the industry’s recent troubles, we must place caution on believing the findings – people are divided, rather than united on the £12bn welfare cuts, and while people may approve of individual measures in the budget, overall believe that the budget benefits the wealthiest in our society. So much, for the Tories being the ‘workers’ party. I think the Tories won the last election, on people’s fear of the SNP, the GBP’s belief in them as a more competence (or rather least calamitous alternative) to the Labour party, and in particular the GBP’s lack of belief in Ed Miliband.
It may be churlish to point out that at the BBC was Don Brind a Labour supporter and John Cole a chap who was on the left as evidenced by his deputy editorship of The Guardian and The Observer . Cole always identified with the Labour Party. (wikipedia).
Now where are all those deniers of BBC being stuffed full of lefties?
Sssht! We've been told by posters like SO that left-wing bias at the BBC doesn't exist.
Yes and if you're not careful he'll come on here and say "I'm sorry you can not understand me but ..blah, blah, blah.." which from Mr Brind can be roughly translated as "you're just a selfish prick"
It may be churlish to point out that at the BBC was Don Brind a Labour supporter and John Cole a chap who was on the left as evidenced by his deputy editorship of The Guardian and The Observer . Cole always identified with the Labour Party. (wikipedia).
Now where are all those deniers of BBC being stuffed full of lefties?
Sssht! We've been told by posters like SO that left-wing bias at the BBC doesn't exist.
Not to mention Andrew Neil that famous lefty.
Sigh, lefties can always be relied on to wheel out Brillo to excuse the hundreds of Liberal elite lefties the BBC employs. Can you name 5 other right wingers ? 3 maybe ?
The BBC spans from centrist Tories to far left Greens. Can anyone name a single right wing Tory or UKIP supporter there?
Farron has an opportunity to overrule the self-interested Scottish LibDem party machine and be seen to do the right thing. For what it's worth I think a candidate like Jo Swinson would have a good chance of winning a O&S by-election, effectively giving the LibDems the impression of winning a seat even though it doesn't add to their total and possibly give them some momentum for May 2016 council and Scottish elections.
I would definitely back at the bookies Jo Swinson in a O&S bye-election.
As would I - I think for Farron recovery in Holyrood 2016 should be one of his top priorities. I guess as Carmichael was one of his backers he is in an awkward spot. At this rate they'll lose their 2 constituency seats and be lucky to scrape a couple of list seats as SLAB, Tories, Greens and possibly UKIP will all be in the fight for list seats.
I'm talking my own book, but I think Yvette Cooper is too long in the Labour leadership market at present. She is very well-placed to pick up preferences.
Off to California, Las Vegas, and a board games convention in Peensylvania tomorrow - first long holiday I've had for about 6 years. This not being obsessed with politics stuff is growing on me.
Enjoy your long overdue vacation Mr Palmer – didn’t you design a board game a while ago?
I'm talking my own book, but I think Yvette Cooper is too long in the Labour leadership market at present. She is very well-placed to pick up preferences.
Off to California, Las Vegas, and a board games convention in Peensylvania tomorrow - first long holiday I've had for about 6 years. This not being obsessed with politics stuff is growing on me.
Enjoy your long overdue vacation Mr Palmer – didn’t you design a board game a while ago?
I found this:
"The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming, by Nicolas Palmer":
Also, If we are to believe recent polling – and given the industry’s recent troubles, we must place caution on believing the findings – people are divided, rather than united on the £12bn welfare cuts, and while people may approve of individual measures in the budget, overall believe that the budget benefits the wealthiest in our society. So much, for the Tories being the ‘workers’ party. I think the Tories won the last election, on people’s fear of the SNP, the GBP’s belief in them as a more competence (or rather least calamitous alternative) to the Labour party, and in particular the GBP’s lack of belief in Ed Miliband.
Pretty spot on. The Tories are gradually revealing themselves again as the nasty party.Their underlying human wickedness since Thatcher is difficult to conceal for long.
I'm talking my own book, but I think Yvette Cooper is too long in the Labour leadership market at present. She is very well-placed to pick up preferences.
Off to California, Las Vegas, and a board games convention in Peensylvania tomorrow - first long holiday I've had for about 6 years. This not being obsessed with politics stuff is growing on me.
Enjoy your long overdue vacation Mr Palmer – didn’t you design a board game a while ago?
A place where, in all seriousness, people talk about getting wood while playing Afrika Korps....
Well, not necessarily, not always. The simple universal welfare benefits, child benefit, pensions &c are all circular - give to all, take the tax. What it can give you at it's best are two much simpler systems to administer than the alternative single system could ever be. What is more, circularity used well could be a strong mechanism by which you can 'make work pay'.
If the circularity made work pay it could have been good.
Unfortunately it did not. What it did was create an absurd situation of making working 16 hours pay. No more, no less than 16 hours.
As there was a withdrawal of tax credits on any marginal wages earned, plus income tax, plus national insurance the effective marginal tax rate of working more than 16 hours was approaching 90%. That made work not pay. If you could for instance work two eight hour shifts a week then what would be the point of working a third so you work say 24 hours if you got all your wages plus tax credits for the first 16 but then paid an effective 90% tax rate on the next eight?
If you're going to put an effective 90% tax rate on people then they won't work more and that creates a poverty trap.
One of Cookie's biggest innings as England Captain coming up. Without Trott etc there are very few English batsmen who have patience to grind it out for more than a day.
One of Cookie's biggest innings as England Captain coming up. Without Trott etc there are very few English batsmen who have patience to grind it out for more than a day.
England to get to 700-5 Decl by drinks in the first session of Day 5 now
Also, If we are to believe recent polling – and given the industry’s recent troubles, we must place caution on believing the findings – people are divided, rather than united on the £12bn welfare cuts, and while people may approve of individual measures in the budget, overall believe that the budget benefits the wealthiest in our society. So much, for the Tories being the ‘workers’ party. I think the Tories won the last election, on people’s fear of the SNP, the GBP’s belief in them as a more competence (or rather least calamitous alternative) to the Labour party, and in particular the GBP’s lack of belief in Ed Miliband.
Pretty spot on. The Tories are gradually revealing themselves again as the nasty party.Their underlying human wickedness since Thatcher is difficult to conceal for long.
People saying things like that make me want to vote Tory, which I have not to date ever done. 'Underlying human wickedness', honestly, what nonsense - just stick with they have completely wrong priorities, overlook key problems, are incompetent, whatever, they are not evil for christ's sake.
Also, If we are to believe recent polling – and given the industry’s recent troubles, we must place caution on believing the findings – people are divided, rather than united on the £12bn welfare cuts, and while people may approve of individual measures in the budget, overall believe that the budget benefits the wealthiest in our society. So much, for the Tories being the ‘workers’ party. I think the Tories won the last election, on people’s fear of the SNP, the GBP’s belief in them as a more competence (or rather least calamitous alternative) to the Labour party, and in particular the GBP’s lack of belief in Ed Miliband.
I can accept a lot of that, although I would say don't people always think budgets benefit the wealthiest in society? I mean, the wealthiest are by definitiojn always better off, so people will by and large assume they are doing better out of any budget than ever before, as that's what we expect. I don't know if there are numbers to support that though, just a supposition.
The Tories are not running away with things, even with a chaotic opposition (although Labour should be wary that the Tories don't need to run away with things to win if they play their own hand badly), but they were not feared more than the alternatives, which I think is key. Maybe they will be next time, particularly with a scarier leader than Cameron possibly at the helm (scarier in terms of how competent they appear, not just if they come across as mean spirited etc), but that too is not certain, especially if Labour make the mistake of painting as evil and scary things which people support, which will make attacks on other more genuinely scary things people don't support lesser in impact.
One of Cookie's biggest innings as England Captain coming up. Without Trott etc there are very few English batsmen who have patience to grind it out for more than a day.
England to get to 700-5 Decl by drinks in the first session of Day 5 now
Maybe 700-6? Not a great start. Lyth just isn't making the necessary step up in class.
FPT My major gripe with the telly is that I recently invested in an HD set and box and (effectively) a box set of series, "England hammer the Aussies in the Ashes". Unfortunately episode 2 is rubbish.
I don’t see how Liz Kendall is well to the left of UK electorate. Kendall is arguably far more to the right than Tony Blair was in 1994. Certainly her opinions on public service provision, while in line with Conservative-thinking aren’t even in step with public opinion at all – for example, her openness regarding private sector involvement in public services and her openness towards the idea of free schools. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that particular policy is popular with the public. On defence spending (she wants to increase it) she’d also be well to right in regard to the British public. While some will sight her positions on IHT, and trade unions, I suspect the former is more proof of her realisation that she has to reach out to Labour members, than her actual position. Kendall acceptance of the Tories’ position on welfare would at the very least put her in the centre of British politics.
snip
But I suspect the more IDS’ changes to welfare effects a larger group of people, the more it will become a politically controversial issue for the Tories. Recently, IDS introduced an idea of workers paying their own sick pay, and unemployment benefit (which is what I thought NI was for, but apparently Osborne wants to scrap that). If that idea is something which the Tories push on with, it’s a whole new ball game, as welfare changes begin to affect many people, as opposed a minority in which many can turn a blind eye to.
Your description of what IDS is supposed to have proposed doesn't quite match what the papers claim he said. He was talking about employees having private insurance against unemployment and illness, but the state would pay this insurance for people who have never earned or paid too low to get adequate cover etc. Its still a massive change to current NI system but not quite as bad as you suggest I think. Not that I am condoning any of it.
I don’t see how Liz Kendall is well to the left of UK electorate. Kendall is arguably far more to the right than Tony Blair was in 1994. Certainly her opinions on public service provision, while in line with Conservative-thinking aren’t even in step with public opinion at all – for example, her openness regarding private sector involvement in public services and her openness towards the idea of free schools. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that particular policy is popular with the public. On defence spending (she wants to increase it) she’d also be well to right in regard to the British public. While some will sight her positions on IHT, and trade unions, I suspect the former is more proof of her realisation that she has to reach out to Labour members, than her actual position. Kendall acceptance of the Tories’ position on welfare would at the very least put her in the centre of British politics.
snip
But I suspect the more IDS’ changes to welfare effects a larger group of people, the more it will become a politically controversial issue for the Tories. Recently, IDS introduced an idea of workers paying their own sick pay, and unemployment benefit (which is what I thought NI was for, but apparently Osborne wants to scrap that). If that idea is something which the Tories push on with, it’s a whole new ball game, as welfare changes begin to affect many people, as opposed a minority in which many can turn a blind eye to.
Your description of what IDS is supposed to have proposed doesn't quite match what the papers claim he said. He was talking about employees having private insurance against unemployment and illness, but the state would pay this insurance for people who have never earned or paid too low to get adequate cover etc. Its still a massive change to current NI system but not quite as bad as you suggest I think. Not that I am condoning any of it.
Really? That's not what I got from The Guardian article I read on the issue....however if what you're saying is true, then tbh I'm quite relived.
One of Cookie's biggest innings as England Captain coming up. Without Trott etc there are very few English batsmen who have patience to grind it out for more than a day.
Also, If we are to believe recent polling – and given the industry’s recent troubles, we must place caution on believing the findings – people are divided, rather than united on the £12bn welfare cuts, and while people may approve of individual measures in the budget, overall believe that the budget benefits the wealthiest in our society. So much, for the Tories being the ‘workers’ party. I think the Tories won the last election, on people’s fear of the SNP, the GBP’s belief in them as a more competence (or rather least calamitous alternative) to the Labour party, and in particular the GBP’s lack of belief in Ed Miliband.
Pretty spot on. The Tories are gradually revealing themselves again as the nasty party.Their underlying human wickedness since Thatcher is difficult to conceal for long.
Maybe we should just put the poor on boats into the Irish Sea and sink them*. We're running out of spikes to put all the fresh heads on.
*Perhaps an exemption for those that learn to talk proper.
One of Cookie's biggest innings as England Captain coming up. Without Trott etc there are very few English batsmen who have patience to grind it out for more than a day.
Well, not necessarily, not always. The simple universal welfare benefits, child benefit, pensions &c are all circular - give to all, take the tax. What it can give you at it's best are two much simpler systems to administer than the alternative single system could ever be. What is more, circularity used well could be a strong mechanism by which you can 'make work pay'.
If the circularity made work pay it could have been good.
Unfortunately it did not. What it did was create an absurd situation of making working 16 hours pay. No more, no less than 16 hours.
As there was a withdrawal of tax credits on any marginal wages earned, plus income tax, plus national insurance the effective marginal tax rate of working more than 16 hours was approaching 90%. That made work not pay. If you could for instance work two eight hour shifts a week then what would be the point of working a third so you work say 24 hours if you got all your wages plus tax credits for the first 16 but then paid an effective 90% tax rate on the next eight?
If you're going to put an effective 90% tax rate on people then they won't work more and that creates a poverty trap.
Funny that, high punitive tax rates alter behaviour .
I can accept a lot of that, although I would say don't people always think budgets benefit the wealthiest in society? I mean, the wealthiest are by definitiojn always better off, so people will by and large assume they are doing better out of any budget than ever before, as that's what we expect. I don't know if there are numbers to support that though, just a supposition.
The Tories are not running away with things, even with a chaotic opposition (although Labour should be wary that the Tories don't need to run away with things to win if they play their own hand badly), but they were not feared more than the alternatives, which I think is key. Maybe they will be next time, particularly with a scarier leader than Cameron possibly at the helm (scarier in terms of how competent they appear, not just if they come across as mean spirited etc), but that too is not certain, especially if Labour make the mistake of painting as evil and scary things which people support, which will make attacks on other more genuinely scary things people don't support lesser in impact.
Tbh so long as the Labour membership aren't as daft as the activist base and elect Corbyn, Labour should be in with a okay chance - at the very least to reduce the Tories to a minority government. On how people see the budget - I'm unaware how previous Labour budgets have been seen in regard to this, but I'd thought I'd mention it given the Tories are pitching themselves as the party of ordinary people.
Also, If we are to believe recent polling – and given the industry’s recent troubles, we must place caution on believing the findings – people are divided, rather than united on the £12bn welfare cuts, and while people may approve of individual measures in the budget, overall believe that the budget benefits the wealthiest in our society. So much, for the Tories being the ‘workers’ party. I think the Tories won the last election, on people’s fear of the SNP, the GBP’s belief in them as a more competence (or rather least calamitous alternative) to the Labour party, and in particular the GBP’s lack of belief in Ed Miliband.
Pretty spot on. The Tories are gradually revealing themselves again as the nasty party.Their underlying human wickedness since Thatcher is difficult to conceal for long.
Rofl - try reading this : "We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
Sigh, lefties can always be relied on to wheel out Brillo to excuse the hundreds of Liberal elite lefties the BBC employs. Can you name 5 other right wingers ? 3 maybe ?
To begin with there’s the BBC current political editor, Nick Robinson, who is about to swap his five minutes on the evening bulletins for three hours on the Today programme. Aeons ago Robinson was chairman of the Young Conservatives, a fact that much exercised Alastair Campbell when he was Labour’s director of communications, although I have to say as a viewer (and former colleague) I have always found Robinson’s reporting to be both insightful and scrupulously fair. So if Robinson is off the hook, how about the BBC journalist who gets the more political airtime than any other – Andrew Neil? He presents or co-presents five hours of television a week including This Week, the Daily Politics and Sunday Politics. Neil might be a penetrating interviewer exposing weaknesses in the arguments advanced by politicians of the left, right and centre but his past leans in one direction. He is a former Rupert Murdoch editor, was a researcher for the Conservative party and is chairman of the Conservative-supporting Spectator magazine. He also stoutly argued his free market views at the Hayek lecture at the rightwing Institute of Economic Affairs in November 2005. But the real worry for me lies behind the scenes where, many suggest, the real power lies. For it’s there we would have found Nick Robinson’s former senior producer, Thea Rogers, who left in 2012 to become special advisor to the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne. Then there’s Robbie Gibb, the current excellent editor of all BBC TV’s political programmes In a former life he was a vice-chairman of the extreme rightwing Federation of Conservative Students and went on to become chief of staff to the senior Tory MP Francis Maude before joining the BBC. And we, or the bias investigators, should not overlook the fact that David Cameron replaced his previous press secretary, Andy Coulson, with the then editor of BBC News, Craig Oliver and, around the same time, London mayor Boris Johnson recruited BBC political correspondent Guto Harri, to head his media team (and when Harri moved on to the Murdoch empire he was replaced by Will Walden, a BBC news editor at Westminster). But in the context of Tory-aligned personnel in influential positions within the BBC, perhaps most importantly of all, one thinks of the recently retired chair of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, a former Conservative cabinet minister.
Mr. Isam, that's a significant story, but there's no need to get over-excited in response to another poster, especially given you chastised others for doing so very recently.
Mr. Isam, that's a significant story, but there's no need to get over-excited in response to another poster, especially given you chastised others for doing so very recently.
Just responding to trolling. Don't worry I'll be banned soon and the trolls can troll/invent bets/accuse others of isms all day long
I don’t see how Liz Kendall is well to the left of UK electorate. Kendall is arguably far more to the right than Tony Blair was in 1994. Certainly her opinions on public service provision, while in line with Conservative-thinking aren’t even in step with public opinion at all – for example, her openness regarding private sector involvement in public services and her openness towards the idea of free schools. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that particular policy is popular with the public. On defence spending (she wants to increase it) she’d also be well to right in regard to the British public. While some will sight her positions on IHT, and trade unions, I suspect the former is more proof of her realisation that she has to reach out to Labour members, than her actual position. Kendall acceptance of the Tories’ position on welfare would at the very least put her in the centre of British politics.
snip
But I suspect the more IDS’ changes to welfare effects a larger group of people, the more it will become a politically controversial issue for the Tories. Recently, IDS introduced an idea of workers paying their own sick pay, and unemployment benefit (which is what I thought NI was for, but apparently Osborne wants to scrap that). If that idea is something which the Tories push on with, it’s a whole new ball game, as welfare changes begin to affect many people, as opposed a minority in which many can turn a blind eye to.
Your description of what IDS is supposed to have proposed doesn't quite match what the papers claim he said. He was talking about employees having private insurance against unemployment and illness, but the state would pay this insurance for people who have never earned or paid too low to get adequate cover etc. Its still a massive change to current NI system but not quite as bad as you suggest I think. Not that I am condoning any of it.
Really? That's not what I got from The Guardian article I read on the issue....however if what you're saying is true, the tbh I'm quite relived.
yes, i'm sure the Guardian put a really neutral spin on it..
Stephen Moss: Labour realists embrace Corbyn and enjoy their spell in the wilderness.
In these depressing circumstances – and I write as a tribal Labour supporter who at the age of 17 was campaign manager for the Labour candidate in the school election – it really doesn’t much matter who Labour choose as leader, and all the breastbeating over the awful possibility that Labour members might choose Jeremy Corbyn seems misplaced. Labour are going to be in the wilderness for another decade, probably longer, and at least he has the right sort of biblical look and fiery rhetoric to lead us there.
Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper are dull, part of the decade of failure that brought Labour to this sorry predicament. Liz Kendall is also largely uninspired, judging by her platitudinous Twitter feed. Also, if she was elected we would revert to the odd position we had when Tony Blair and Charles Kennedy were in charge, of Labour being a centre-right party and the Lib Dems staking out their territory on the left.
At least Corbyn will get the juices of the members flowing, speak a language that the marginalised groups lost to Labour can understand, and offer a message that is distinct from the über-liberalism of George Osborne. With Corbyn, Labour can have some fun in the wilderness and will no doubt still poll 30% or thereabouts at the next general election. Farron, after all, is no Gladstone (apart from the close connection with God), and even Michael Foot couldn’t get the party below 28%.
I don’t see how Liz Kendall is well to the left of UK electorate. Kendall is arguably far more to the right than Tony Blair was in 1994. Certainly her opinions on public service provision, while in line with Conservative-thinking aren’t even in step with public opinion at all – for example, her openness regarding private sector involvement in public services and her openness towards the idea of free schools. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that particular policy is popular with the public. On defence spending (she wants to increase it) she’d also be well to right in regard to the British public. While some will sight her positions on IHT, and trade unions, I suspect the former is more proof of her realisation that she has to reach out to Labour members, than her actual position. Kendall acceptance of the Tories’ position on welfare would at the very least put her in the centre of British politics.
snip
But I suspect the more IDS’ changes to welfare effects a larger group of people, the more it will become a politically controversial issue for the Tories. Recently, IDS introduced an idea of workers paying their own sick pay, and unemployment benefit (which is what I thought NI was for, but apparently Osborne wants to scrap that). If that idea is something which the Tories push on with, it’s a whole new ball game, as welfare changes begin to affect many people, as opposed a minority in which many can turn a blind eye to.
Your description of what IDS is supposed to have proposed doesn't quite match what the papers claim he said. He was talking about employees having private insurance against unemployment and illness, but the state would pay this insurance for people who have never earned or paid too low to get adequate cover etc. Its still a massive change to current NI system but not quite as bad as you suggest I think. Not that I am condoning any of it.
Really? That's not what I got from The Guardian article I read on the issue....however if what you're saying is true, the tbh I'm quite relived.
yes, i'm sure the Guardian put a really neutral spin on it..
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.
That's all true, but a lot of Tories seem to be forgetting that their win was only secured because some very reluctant people switched at the very last minute. That doesn't make their win any less "deserved", but nonetheless it is hardly a rock-solid support base which guarantees them wins for years to come.
I honestly don't think many Tories (and to be fair quite a few Labourites) realise how relatively little it will take for some of those head-over-heart Tory voters to desert them.
There was no last minute reluctant swing. You are whistling in the dark. I suspect the vast majority of voters are 'reluctant'. It would be unwise to rely on that kind of argument.
I don’t see how Liz Kendall is well to the left of UK electorate. Kendall is arguably far more to the right than Tony Blair was in 1994. Certainly her opinions on public service provision, while in line with Conservative-thinking aren’t even in step with public opinion at all – for example, her openness regarding private sector involvement in public services and her openness towards the idea of free schools. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that particular policy is popular with the public. On defence spending (she wants to increase it) she’d also be well to right in regard to the British public. While some will sight her positions on IHT, and trade unions, I suspect the former is more proof of her realisation that she has to reach out to Labour members, than her actual position. Kendall acceptance of the Tories’ position on welfare would at the very least put her in the centre of British politics.
snip
But I suspect the more IDS’ changes to welfare effects a larger group of people, the more it will become a politically controversial issue for the Tories. Recently, IDS introduced an idea of workers paying their own sick pay, and unemployment benefit (which is what I thought NI was for, but apparently Osborne wants to scrap that). If that idea is something which the Tories push on with, it’s a whole new ball game, as welfare changes begin to affect many people, as opposed a minority in which many can turn a blind eye to.
Your description of what IDS is supposed to have proposed doesn't quite match what the papers claim he said. He was talking about employees having private insurance against unemployment and illness, but the state would pay this insurance for people who have never earned or paid too low to get adequate cover etc. Its still a massive change to current NI system but not quite as bad as you suggest I think. Not that I am condoning any of it.
Really? That's not what I got from The Guardian article I read on the issue....however if what you're saying is true, the tbh I'm quite relived.
yes, i'm sure the Guardian put a really neutral spin on it..
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
He did not have to say it, we all knew he was thinking draw. That's all it needed. Ballance and Bell may be playing their last tests for a while. This game could be over tomorrow if Root is out cheaply.
He did not have to say it, we all knew he was thinking draw. That's all it needed. Ballance and Bell may be playing their last tests for a while. This game could be over tomorrow if Root is out cheaply.
@patrick_kidd: Last time England went 1-0 up in a home Ashes (1997), they were dismissed for 77 in first innings of the second Test. There's your target
The Tories might be toxic, but they still received more votes than anybody else.
Competence is key, toxicity isn't.
Toxicity is very good. Very popular in Peru from my experience. Not the darkest realms perhaps; no Mohamaddan Scottish-born, plastic-Yorkshireman lawyers could be found from my young friends aquaintences.
@AndyJS - "The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming,”
Cheers Andy, that does sound familiar, although I’m sure Nick also mentioned designing one.
[edit. It was years ago now so could be barking up the wrong tree]
Thanks for the good wishes, all. Yes, I wrote three books on games and that one was the success - sold 100,000 copies in 5 editions. I designed a computer game (Their Finest Hour), a board game (Strike!) long out of print and a couple of games for conventions.
Danny - I'm leaning to Yvette as I think voters rate us a great deal (too much IMO) on whether the LOTO is imaginable in Number 10. On the whole I think Yvette ticks that box best of the contenders, as well as adding a certain freshness by virtue of gender - I think people will take the trouble to have a closer look at her, whereas they already think they know about Andy and Jeremy (I don't honestly think Liz has any chance). I have reservations about her media performance, but that's something one can learn, and it's not really Cameron's longest suit either.
He did not have to say it, we all knew he was thinking draw. That's all it needed. Ballance and Bell may be playing their last tests for a while. This game could be over tomorrow if Root is out cheaply.
You just had to say that, didn't you?
On the positive side, it frees up Sunday to watch the end of the Open.
@AndyJS - "The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming,”
Cheers Andy, that does sound familiar, although I’m sure Nick also mentioned designing one.
[edit. It was years ago now so could be barking up the wrong tree]
Thanks for the good wishes, all. Yes, I wrote three books on games and that one was the success - sold 100,000 copies in 5 editions. I designed a computer game (Their Finest Hour), a board game (Strike!) long out of print and a couple of games for conventions.
Danny - I'm leaning to Yvette as I think voters rate us a great deal (too much IMO) on whether the LOTO is imaginable in Number 10. On the whole I think Yvette ticks that box best of the contenders, as well as adding a certain freshness by virtue of gender - I think people will take the trouble to have a closer look at her, whereas they already think they know about Andy and Jeremy (I don't honestly think Liz has any chance). I have reservations about her media performance, but that's something one can learn, and it's not really Cameron's longest suit either.
'On the whole I think Yvette ticks that box best of the contenders'
That sounds a lot like the 'best of a bad lot' arguement from you Nick...
These days it's hard to find anything which is 'neutral'. The Guardian are becoming more and more comical - even the NS are less biased than them. The Telegraph may as well be called the Torygraph, the Mail is for the permanently shocked and outraged and the tabloid give a simplified view of the world.
Since you and @kle4 are both about I'll add something to our conversation last night...
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.
Comments
Whatever one's views on the reform, it looks like the most monumental red herring to me.
I think the Tories would be wise to recognise they did well and the system favoured them this time, but they cannot be complacent by any means even if Labour elect a duffer as leader, but the other extreme of 'the people were fooled!' is unhelpful without even commenting on how insulting it is, though thankfully not a widespread view.
Is it time to mention Philip's Nazi past yet?
"Yes, let's mention the 5 years he spent fighting them for starters."
" The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71%
Should not resign: 14%
Don’t know: 15% "
Farron has an opportunity to overrule the self-interested Scottish LibDem party machine and be seen to do the right thing. For what it's worth I think a candidate like Jo Swinson would have a good chance of winning a O&S by-election, effectively giving the LibDems the impression of winning a seat even though it doesn't add to their total and possibly give them some momentum for May 2016 council and Scottish elections.
The only impact Prince Phillip has at his age is to influence people like Jones to get all uppity and offended and writing pointless, vacuous articles like this one.
But then with the Labour party elections turning into an episode of The Simpsons, perhaps we can excuse the poor boy this one.
Yesterday was the 70th anniversary of The Trinity Test:
Happy NukeDay to you! 70 years in the shadow of the bomb post-Trinity
Yes and remind me what Farron did over Rennard?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/17/prince-philip-who-you-sponge-off
Oh dear! A very Harmanesque grammatical error. Apologies!
As for the article above, keep on taking the meds.
Miss Plato, shocking the jest wasn't run past the People's Mirth Committee for prior approval.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/249223.html Adelaide 2006
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63920.html Eden Gardens 2001
Hope for England yet ^_~
Off to California, Las Vegas, and a board games convention in Peensylvania tomorrow - first long holiday I've had for about 6 years. This not being obsessed with politics stuff is growing on me.
Cannae
Tigranocerta
Issus and Arbela
I don’t quite buy that the election was a ‘triumph for Tory values’. In general, the Tories were pretty vague about what they would do if given a majority, and much their pledges were unfunded. They generally didn’t specify where cuts (particularly in welfare) would exactly be, either. Where the Tories have won the debate, is in regard to out of work benefits, and that is where a large amount of people’s disgruntlement about welfare has come from. I’m not so sure – and have no seen no evidence – that people feel the same way about low-income earners. Indeed, a lot of Conservative rhetoric in the last five years has been about the deserving and undeserving poor – distinguished between the unemployed, welfare dependent poor, and the in-work, low earning poor. Much of their welfare changes, if anything actually goes against that argument. It’s very easy to adopt a certain ‘tough’ position on welfare when it doesn’t affect you. I’m sure it’s great for people to feel self-reliant and not dependent on the state (in regard to low-income earners) – when wages make up for what you would have received in tax credits. But when there is nothing to make up for that shortfall, I wonder how low-income earners feel then.
But I suspect the more IDS’ changes to welfare effects a larger group of people, the more it will become a politically controversial issue for the Tories. Recently, IDS introduced an idea of workers paying their own sick pay, and unemployment benefit (which is what I thought NI was for, but apparently Osborne wants to scrap that). If that idea is something which the Tories push on with, it’s a whole new ball game, as welfare changes begin to affect many people, as opposed a minority in which many can turn a blind eye to.
This is a nuisance number which keeps ringing and then hanging up:
03331-553797
http://findwhocallsyou.com/03331553797
"The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming, by Nicolas Palmer":
https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/35367/item/769103
Unfortunately it did not. What it did was create an absurd situation of making working 16 hours pay. No more, no less than 16 hours.
As there was a withdrawal of tax credits on any marginal wages earned, plus income tax, plus national insurance the effective marginal tax rate of working more than 16 hours was approaching 90%. That made work not pay. If you could for instance work two eight hour shifts a week then what would be the point of working a third so you work say 24 hours if you got all your wages plus tax credits for the first 16 but then paid an effective 90% tax rate on the next eight?
If you're going to put an effective 90% tax rate on people then they won't work more and that creates a poverty trap.
England to get to 700-5 Decl by drinks in the first session of Day 5 now
The Tories are not running away with things, even with a chaotic opposition (although Labour should be wary that the Tories don't need to run away with things to win if they play their own hand badly), but they were not feared more than the alternatives, which I think is key. Maybe they will be next time, particularly with a scarier leader than Cameron possibly at the helm (scarier in terms of how competent they appear, not just if they come across as mean spirited etc), but that too is not certain, especially if Labour make the mistake of painting as evil and scary things which people support, which will make attacks on other more genuinely scary things people don't support lesser in impact.
Overheard in #GuyNewsroom "This will break the internet" #StayTuned
Cheers Andy, that does sound familiar, although I’m sure Nick also mentioned designing one.
[edit. It was years ago now so could be barking up the wrong tree]
*Perhaps an exemption for those that learn to talk proper.
True for supper rich and super poor.
Maybe lafer curve is based on reality.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/10/6080/
To begin with there’s the BBC current political editor, Nick Robinson, who is about to swap his five minutes on the evening bulletins for three hours on the Today programme. Aeons ago Robinson was chairman of the Young Conservatives, a fact that much exercised Alastair Campbell when he was Labour’s director of communications, although I have to say as a viewer (and former colleague) I have always found Robinson’s reporting to be both insightful and scrupulously fair.
So if Robinson is off the hook, how about the BBC journalist who gets the more political airtime than any other – Andrew Neil? He presents or co-presents five hours of television a week including This Week, the Daily Politics and Sunday Politics. Neil might be a penetrating interviewer exposing weaknesses in the arguments advanced by politicians of the left, right and centre but his past leans in one direction.
He is a former Rupert Murdoch editor, was a researcher for the Conservative party and is chairman of the Conservative-supporting Spectator magazine. He also stoutly argued his free market views at the Hayek lecture at the rightwing Institute of Economic Affairs in November 2005.
But the real worry for me lies behind the scenes where, many suggest, the real power lies. For it’s there we would have found Nick Robinson’s former senior producer, Thea Rogers, who left in 2012 to become special advisor to the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne. Then there’s Robbie Gibb, the current excellent editor of all BBC TV’s political programmes In a former life he was a vice-chairman of the extreme rightwing Federation of Conservative Students and went on to become chief of staff to the senior Tory MP Francis Maude before joining the BBC.
And we, or the bias investigators, should not overlook the fact that David Cameron replaced his previous press secretary, Andy Coulson, with the then editor of BBC News, Craig Oliver and, around the same time, London mayor Boris Johnson recruited BBC political correspondent Guto Harri, to head his media team (and when Harri moved on to the Murdoch empire he was replaced by Will Walden, a BBC news editor at Westminster).
But in the context of Tory-aligned personnel in influential positions within the BBC, perhaps most importantly of all, one thinks of the recently retired chair of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, a former Conservative cabinet minister.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/14/bbc-political-bias-news-nick-robinson
Wasn't a scare story, the most famous bridge in the world closes then reopens due to a bomb scare.
Government appears to be trying to neuter the Freedom of Information Act.
https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/commission-review-freedom-information
Check the people on the committee, guess what answer is being looked for
Disgraceful if true.
In these depressing circumstances – and I write as a tribal Labour supporter who at the age of 17 was campaign manager for the Labour candidate in the school election – it really doesn’t much matter who Labour choose as leader, and all the breastbeating over the awful possibility that Labour members might choose Jeremy Corbyn seems misplaced. Labour are going to be in the wilderness for another decade, probably longer, and at least he has the right sort of biblical look and fiery rhetoric to lead us there.
Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper are dull, part of the decade of failure that brought Labour to this sorry predicament. Liz Kendall is also largely uninspired, judging by her platitudinous Twitter feed. Also, if she was elected we would revert to the odd position we had when Tony Blair and Charles Kennedy were in charge, of Labour being a centre-right party and the Lib Dems staking out their territory on the left.
At least Corbyn will get the juices of the members flowing, speak a language that the marginalised groups lost to Labour can understand, and offer a message that is distinct from the über-liberalism of George Osborne. With Corbyn, Labour can have some fun in the wilderness and will no doubt still poll 30% or thereabouts at the next general election. Farron, after all, is no Gladstone (apart from the close connection with God), and even Michael Foot couldn’t get the party below 28%.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/17/labour-realists-jeremy-corbyn-wilderness
http://order-order.com/2015/07/17/harman-horror-at-penile-drugs-injection/#_@/ZfD4UMnpveDVUw
Danny - I'm leaning to Yvette as I think voters rate us a great deal (too much IMO) on whether the LOTO is imaginable in Number 10. On the whole I think Yvette ticks that box best of the contenders, as well as adding a certain freshness by virtue of gender - I think people will take the trouble to have a closer look at her, whereas they already think they know about Andy and Jeremy (I don't honestly think Liz has any chance). I have reservations about her media performance, but that's something one can learn, and it's not really Cameron's longest suit either.
I certainly wouldn't turn down 100,000 sales!
Are you putting down second/third preferences?
That sounds a lot like the 'best of a bad lot' arguement from you Nick...
I bet the Beeb are starting to regret threatening to "empty chair" the Prime Minister of the country on national TV now...
Oops .
If you go into the deepest and darkest green corners of the internet, you will discover the unpalatable truth. JEREMY CORBYN IS A VILE NEOLIBERAL. He mouths socialist platitudes in order to gain popularity, but is only splitting the left by doing so (in the sense that he is persuading members of the Greens or Left Unity etc to affiliate with Labour, hence breaking up genuine left-wing organisations and rupturing the radical left).
You might not have thought there are places where Corbyn is called a "neoliberal", but just like Telegraph kippers calling Cameron a left-wing liberal or Labour's lefties calling Harman a Tory sell-out, political positioning is clearly relative. For folk to the left of Corbyn (who is basically traditional "hard left" without encroaching anywhere near "far left") he is just a vicious right-winger like any other.