A list of paired MPs for the vote would be interesting. Were any of the leadership contenders paired ?
If the whip was to abstain, would it not be reasonable to do so in the formal manner - by going through both lobbies? It seems that most of the Labour party just didn't turn up, therefore making any conclusions difficult to draw.
Ah, so that is what happens when tax rates are cut. Maybe Arthur Laffer had a point.
Well, it certainly isn't the opposite.
I'd be interested to read a proper analysis of why actually, whether:
- it's money that would have been paid in, say, July but has come it at June; - it's simply the result of an improvement in the economy; - it's the result of former improvements filtering through (no more losses to set against, etc.); - it's established businesses coming to the UK and/or choosing to pay more tax here; - something else.
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Is it really a boom? Doesn't feel very boomy. Still lots of retraction going on.
Ah, so that is what happens when tax rates are cut. Maybe Arthur Laffer had a point.
Well, it certainly isn't the opposite.
I'd be interested to read a proper analysis of why actually, whether:
- it's money that would have been paid in, say, July but has come it at June; - it's simply the result of an improvement in the economy; - it's the result of former improvements filtering through (no more losses to set against, etc.); - it's established businesses coming to the UK and/or choosing to pay more tax here; - something else.
Yes, it would be good to understand more about why taxes paid are going up so much.
There's been a lot said about aggressive corporate tax avoidance, it would be interesting if this is contributing, as well as a a general uptick in the economy.
I'd also hazard a guess that a recovering financial services sector is responsible for a considerable amount of the increase. Another possible factor is that companies paid taxes up front where possible either pending the outcome of the election or due to new HMRC rules from previous budgets.
"Unity is overrated." There were plenty of people grumbling that phrase following Labour’s defeat in May. While Miliband had ‘kept the party together’, all it had led to was another, heavier defeat. And what’s the point in that?
But now we see what disunity looks like. Last night’s rebellion on the welfare vote was, in terms of number of the MPs voting against the whip, the tenth largest Labour has seen in the last decade. 48 MPs, over 20% of the Parliamentary Labour Party, broke the whip and voted against the welfare bill - you can see the full list here.
Around 19 MPs who rebelled are from the 2015 intake, with several more post-2010 by-election arrivals. This certainly suggests that there has been a shift to the left in the PLP’s make up over the past few years.
From a rough count, 16 of those nominated Jeremy Corbyn (including Corbyn himself), 14 Andy Burnham, nine Yvette Cooper and one Liz Kendall.
Both Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper fell into line, following rows with Harriet Harman, where both had argued for a tougher line. MPs gossiped yesterday that both had been considering breaking the whip at different points, but each camp is adamant their stance has remained unchanged over the past week. No one knowing the scale of the rebellion in the build-up to the vote appears to have been fertile ground for rumours to gain traction - even if they were a little far-fetched.
In the minutes following the vote, Burnham issued a statement saying that if he is elected leader, Labour will fight bill “word by word, line by line”.
Ah, so that is what happens when tax rates are cut. Maybe Arthur Laffer had a point.
Well, it certainly isn't the opposite.
I'd be interested to read a proper analysis of why actually, whether:
- it's money that would have been paid in, say, July but has come it at June; - it's simply the result of an improvement in the economy; - it's the result of former improvements filtering through (no more losses to set against, etc.); - it's established businesses coming to the UK and/or choosing to pay more tax here; - something else.
Yes, it would be good to understand more about why taxes paid are going up so much.
There's been a lot said about aggressive corporate tax avoidance, it would be interesting if this is contributing, as well as a a general uptick in the economy.
I'd also hazard a guess that a recovering financial services sector is responsible for a considerable amount of the increase. Another possible factor is that companies paid taxes up front where possible either pending the outcome of the election or due to new HMRC rules from previous budgets.
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Capital projects underwrite a lot of economic growth. We have very old and dilapidated Victorian infrastructure that badly needs upgrading.
Without good roads, railways, airports, ports, energy, power generation, broadband and housing no one can do much else and businesses won't invest and be able to grow.
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Capital projects underwrite a lot of economic growth. We have very old and dilapidated Victorian infrastructure that badly needs upgrading.
Without good roads, railways, airports, ports, energy, power generation, broadband and housing no one can do much else and businesses won't invest and be able to grow.
My primary issue is that much of this just takes too long to implement. If you think how long most infrastructure takes - power plants, train lines, airports, ports - we'd have to commission them in the boom if we wanted most of the benefit in employment, etc, as well as the outlay, to come in the bust.
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Is it really a boom? Doesn't feel very boomy. Still lots of retraction going on.
It's a boom, generally people only ever mention a boom AFTER it's happened, when we're in the bust. I don't recall anyone mentioning a boom in 2007 either - but it was there.
He in for a penny in for a pound on this one now. Labour local Bradford West MP Naz Shah not so keen on it.
So neo con Cameron's answer is forced busing, what an idiot he is, a unfortunately an extremely dangerous one.
How about establishing a Palestinian state, not invading Islamic countries like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, how about not destabilising Syria, not sponsoring Salafist terror groups, not allowing Salafist money in this country, securing our borders and deporting undesirables.
Let's hope Corbyn wins the Labour leadership, Cameron is a dangerous man who will commit us to endless war if he can.
Yeah its all our fault - we should apologise. If only other immigrant groups like the Chinese and Indians could stand up for themselves and express their own cultures in a totalitarian way they could enjoy Rotherham levels of happiness.
I don't see the Chinese and Indians interfering in the Middle East. Cameron is the pro immigration guy anyway. Liberals like him tried busing and forced integration in the 70s in the US, or indeed stealing aboriginal children in Australia, both failed.
What was that about the SNP forming common cause with Labour?
I liked this in the 3rd para under the IDS photo:
"BBC political editor Normal Smith ..."
That was pretty special.
Why is the opinion of a Tory of any consequence?
Quite. There's two million that just voted for Cameron that need to be persuaded back to the Red team if they want to win the election - appealing to Marxists and Greens may be comfortable but it's hardly a winning strategy.
Squeezed middle C1/C2 voters are often overlooked but they are decisive in elections. They make up more than half the electorate in the vast majority of the English swing seats that Labour needs to win to secure a workable majority. But Labour has been steadily losing these voters’ support since Tony Blair left office. Getting them back will require serious change. ... While many Labour voices reject virtually any changes to the welfare state, squeezed middle voters care deeply about welfare reform. Our research showed that, by 64 per cent to 22 per cent, C1 voters in marginal seats believe that the welfare state is too generous. C2 voters in marginal seats believe the same by 61 per cent to 23 per cent. While C1/C2 voters in marginals put reforming welfare towards the top of their list of policy priorities, few believe this is a Labour priority.
There's no denying that these are the views of middle voters, but these kinds of findings need more detail. In what ways do voters feel the welfare state is too generous? What would welfare reform look like to them? What, at heart, is their issue with a 'generous' welfare system?
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Is it really a boom? Doesn't feel very boomy. Still lots of retraction going on.
It's a boom, generally people only ever mention a boom AFTER it's happened, when we're in the bust. I don't recall anyone mentioning a boom in 2007 either - but it was there.
Oh 2007 was obviously a boom at the time, at least if you worked in the City. I remember working on deals at the time and giving advice to clients that they really ought to think very carefully about doing the deals that they were doing because they depended on some optimistic assumptions. The clients did the deals and they regretted them.
I was not thanked for the advice at the time and I was not thought of with any greater affection when my advice turned out to be well-founded.
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Is it really a boom? Doesn't feel very boomy. Still lots of retraction going on.
It's a boom, generally people only ever mention a boom AFTER it's happened, when we're in the bust. I don't recall anyone mentioning a boom in 2007 either - but it was there.
Oh 2007 was obviously a boom at the time, at least if you worked in the City. I remember working on deals at the time and giving advice to clients that they really ought to think very carefully about doing the deals that they were doing because they depended on some optimistic assumptions. The clients did the deals and they regretted them.
I was not thanked for the advice at the time and I was not thought of with any greater affection when my advice turned out to be well-founded.
Absolutely 0% chance Trump is the GOP nominee. The McCain comments wont have gone down well with the conservatives he needs.
On the other hand I think there's a good chance he'll decide to run as an independent, which would mirror the Perot effect in '92. He has the money to self fund and the ego, i wouldn't be surprised if he went for it.
He in for a penny in for a pound on this one now. Labour local Bradford West MP Naz Shah not so keen on it.
So neo con Cameron's answer is forced busing, what an idiot he is, a unfortunately an extremely dangerous one.
How about establishing a Palestinian state, not invading Islamic countries like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, how about not destabilising Syria, not sponsoring Salafist terror groups, not allowing Salafist money in this country, securing our borders and deporting undesirables.
Let's hope Corbyn wins the Labour leadership, Cameron is a dangerous man who will commit us to endless war if he can.
Yeah its all our fault - we should apologise. If only other immigrant groups like the Chinese and Indians could stand up for themselves and express their own cultures in a totalitarian way they could enjoy Rotherham levels of happiness.
I don't see the Chinese and Indians interfering in the Middle East..
Correct ! but yet they still face domestic terror issues from Uyghurs.
Or is that due to "poverty" and "not listening to community leaders " ?
I was not thanked for the advice at the time and I was not thought of with any greater affection when my advice turned out to be well-founded.
Still, better to be paid than to be loved!
How very true. I try to put my ego to one side when my advice is ignored. There's a double benefit of that happening.
First, you can't get sued when it all goes wrong. Secondly, if the advice was any good, the chances are high that far more fees will be generated by the clients ignoring your advice than by following it.
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Capital projects underwrite a lot of economic growth. We have very old and dilapidated Victorian infrastructure that badly needs upgrading.
Without good roads, railways, airports, ports, energy, power generation, broadband and housing no one can do much else and businesses won't invest and be able to grow.
My primary issue is that much of this just takes too long to implement. If you think how long most infrastructure takes - power plants, train lines, airports, ports - we'd have to commission them in the boom if we wanted most of the benefit in employment, etc, as well as the outlay, to come in the bust.
It's not about timing the spade in the ground to ensure employment during recessions. This is about strategic infrastructure that will have an effect over 30-50, even 125 year (Crossrail's design life) lifecycles.
There could be a baker's dozen of recessions during that time. But it's necessary to get Britain ready to face the challenges of the 21st Century and stay prosperous.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Capital projects underwrite a lot of economic growth. We have very old and dilapidated Victorian infrastructure that badly needs upgrading.
Without good roads, railways, airports, ports, energy, power generation, broadband and housing no one can do much else and businesses won't invest and be able to grow.
My primary issue is that much of this just takes too long to implement. If you think how long most infrastructure takes - power plants, train lines, airports, ports - we'd have to commission them in the boom if we wanted most of the benefit in employment, etc, as well as the outlay, to come in the bust.
It's not about timing the spade in the ground to ensure employment during recessions. This is about strategic infrastructure that will have an effect over 30-50, even 125 year (Crossrail's design life) lifecycles.
There could be a baker's dozen of recessions during that time. But it's necessary to get Britain ready to face the challenges of the 21st Century and stay prosperous.
When Pulpstar said "delayed for the inevitable bust" I assumed they had something Keynesian in mind.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget.
[snipped]
All of which is if they continue to work the same hours as before. The Budget is explicitly encouraging them to work more (rather than "maxing out" at 16 hours).
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Capital projects underwrite a lot of economic growth. We have very old and dilapidated Victorian infrastructure that badly needs upgrading.
Without good roads, railways, airports, ports, energy, power generation, broadband and housing no one can do much else and businesses won't invest and be able to grow.
My primary issue is that much of this just takes too long to implement. If you think how long most infrastructure takes - power plants, train lines, airports, ports - we'd have to commission them in the boom if we wanted most of the benefit in employment, etc, as well as the outlay, to come in the bust.
It's not about timing the spade in the ground to ensure employment during recessions. This is about strategic infrastructure that will have an effect over 30-50, even 125 year (Crossrail's design life) lifecycles.
There could be a baker's dozen of recessions during that time. But it's necessary to get Britain ready to face the challenges of the 21st Century and stay prosperous.
When Pulpstar said "delayed for the inevitable bust" I assumed they had something Keynesian in mind.
Frank Field is assuming that nobody else will get a pay rise bar those on minimum wage ?
What he is correctly identifying is an opportunity for Labour. Osborne's words and the euphoria with which they have been greeted by so many may not end up matching people's experiences. By definition, a living wage is one you can live on. Of course, whether Labour can take the opportunity is a completely different matter.
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Capital projects underwrite a lot of economic growth. We have very old and dilapidated Victorian infrastructure that badly needs upgrading.
Without good roads, railways, airports, ports, energy, power generation, broadband and housing no one can do much else and businesses won't invest and be able to grow.
My primary issue is that much of this just takes too long to implement. If you think how long most infrastructure takes - power plants, train lines, airports, ports - we'd have to commission them in the boom if we wanted most of the benefit in employment, etc, as well as the outlay, to come in the bust.
It's not about timing the spade in the ground to ensure employment during recessions. This is about strategic infrastructure that will have an effect over 30-50, even 125 year (Crossrail's design life) lifecycles.
There could be a baker's dozen of recessions during that time. But it's necessary to get Britain ready to face the challenges of the 21st Century and stay prosperous.
When Pulpstar said "delayed for the inevitable bust" I assumed they had something Keynesian in mind.
Yes, there is that approach - the Hoover Dam policy - but the risk is that it just lands you with white elephants or you build something (anything) to generate employment that later is found to not meet its requirements and needs to be changed at great expense.
It's much better to have a steady stream of well-thought through strategic infrastructure.
Somehow, I doubt workers will be all giddy that they may have to end working two jobs, instead of one (affecting the time they can spend with family and so on) and think, 'wow, thanks Mr Osborne'.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Nobody is getting any money taken away - the state is choosing not to subsidise their employers any more.
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million.
The £20k families could be inheriting the houses worth a million in the future though
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Taking less tax off people is not a subsidy. Giving people less subsidy is not a tax.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Nobody is getting any money taken away - the state is choosing not to subsidise their employers any more.
And millions of people will be losing out as a result. Osborne has promised a living wage. Let's see if he delivers.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Nobody is getting any money taken away - the state is choosing not to subsidise their employers any more.
And millions of people will be losing out as a result. Osborne has promised a living wage. Let's see if he delivers.
Ed based his whole election strategy on this with the "bedroom tax" - it failed spectacularly.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Nonsense. The IHT cut is being funded explicitly by taxing pensions of top rate earners at £150k. It is Middle income families that suffer at the moment from IHT (not the wealthy who can dodge it) with most family homes in the south and almost all in London way above the existing IHT threshold.
Welfare cuts are about choices. The deficit must be cut. I'd prefer to increase the minimum wage and incentivise people into well-paid jobs with a strong economy rather than cut education, health, or defence.
Where I do agree with you is on pensions. I think they're too gold-plated now and the triple lock should be reformed.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
All parties agree that the wealthy should subsidise the poor to some extent. This is a change in the extent of that subsidy, not a subsidy the other way.
Somehow, I doubt workers will be all giddy that they may have to end working two jobs, instead of one (affecting the time they can spend with family and so on) and think, 'wow, thanks Mr Osborne'.
In being so elastic with his deficit elimination timetable, the other thing that Osborne has done is demonstrate that his moves are based on ideology not necessity. Again, this is another opportunity for Labour. But, again, you have to wonder whether the party is capable of making anything of it.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Taking less tax off people is not a subsidy. Giving people less subsidy is not a tax.
Repeat three times.
Giving all pensioners free heating and bus passes is a subsidy.
Billions of pounds worth of land and buildings will be sold to enable George Osborne to cut public spending by £20billion a year.
The Chancellor will today tell ministers to identify NHS, defence and other government assets to be disposed of, to help provide a further 150,000 new homes to ease the housing crisis.
The Ministry of Defence alone owns 227,300 hectares – 1 per cent of all land in the UK, including 15 golf courses.
The Chancellor used his Budget earlier this month to lay out plans to save £12billion in welfare and £5billion in tax avoidance a year by 2020. He will confirm today that government departments will be told to produce £20billion of savings by that year.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Taking less tax off people is not a subsidy. Giving people less subsidy is not a tax.
Repeat three times.
Giving all pensioners free heating and bus passes is a subsidy.
There are not the buses here for even pensioners to use. No car and you cannot get to town for any shopping. Also AFAIK there is no free heating but a winter fuel allowance around November which depends on how many claimants live in the same premises.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Taking less tax off people is not a subsidy. Giving people less subsidy is not a tax.
Repeat three times.
Giving all pensioners free heating and bus passes is a subsidy.
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Is it really a boom? Doesn't feel very boomy. Still lots of retraction going on.
It's a boom, generally people only ever mention a boom AFTER it's happened, when we're in the bust. I don't recall anyone mentioning a boom in 2007 either - but it was there.
I moved to London in 1986 to train as an accountant, my starting salary was £5,750 - house prices were booming, the City was preparing for Big Bang, the re-gentrification of London was well underway - Yuppies etc. Then came the storm of 1987, within days the stock markets crashed and the housing bubble was about to burst.
Many of my friends and colleagues had courtesy of Nigel Lawson, clubbed together with their £30k MIRAS allowances and lumbering themselves with inappropriate properties. Once the London house price bubbled burst in 1989 many of these folks were left in negative equity in their mid-20s just as they were trying to start relationships etc - tough times. It took 7 years for inflation adjusted London house prices to return to their Autumn 1988 peak.
My definition of a London boom is when everybody gets carried away and thinks things are only going in one direction - stock markets rising, house prices rising, bonuses, art booming and the real litmus test - London black cabs never had so good. The alarm bells should start ringing when people start borrowing money to invest in the stock markets.
Will there be another bust? 100% yes - when - who knows.
Somehow, I doubt workers will be all giddy that they may have to end working two jobs, instead of one (affecting the time they can spend with family and so on) and think, 'wow, thanks Mr Osborne'.
In being so elastic with his deficit elimination timetable, the other thing that Osborne has done is demonstrate that his moves are based on ideology not necessity. Again, this is another opportunity for Labour. But, again, you have to wonder whether the party is capable of making anything of it.
A lot what Osborne does is deffo based on ideology - he's the 'son of Brown' in more ways than one. As for Labour capitalising, it depends who they elect. Any of the candidates except Corbyn can capitalise on this, although I think Cooper would probably be the best bet.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Favourite Labour MP of many people, besides Tories and Labour supporters....
I think that Osborne may have calculated that the people affected by the CTC cut would mostly have voted Labour anyway, so they form a relatively easy target for Government expenditure savings.
If Labour want to make anything of it, though, they need to quote some case studies of real people. Overall totals don't have the same impact as real human stories. "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Taking less tax off people is not a subsidy. Giving people less subsidy is not a tax.
Repeat three times.
Giving all pensioners free heating and bus passes is a subsidy.
Correct - should be means tested for all new pensioners.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Taking less tax off people is not a subsidy. Giving people less subsidy is not a tax.
Repeat three times.
Giving all pensioners free heating and bus passes is a subsidy.
Correct - should be means tested for all new pensioners.
Would that be a net saving, after accounting for the administration? Would that change your mind?
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
"Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off." So if a family has one worker working 40 hours a week then it is getting paid £3.50 per hour. That is illegal. So the calculation must be based on a family only having one worker doing less than 20 hours a week.....
Seems Arctic ice levels have been quietly dropped as the Gold Standard of climate change indication, after they, er....looks at shoes....mumbles to self... grew by a third in the cool summer of 2013....
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ... snip The analysis shows that: - 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year. - 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off. - 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result. Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Taking less tax off people is not a subsidy. Giving people less subsidy is not a tax.
Repeat three times.
Giving all pensioners free heating and bus passes is a subsidy.
Correct - should be means tested for all new pensioners.
Would that be a net saving, after accounting for the administration? Would that change your mind?
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
The problem is that people earning £16,037 a year, working full time, also saw a cut.
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Favourite Labour MP of many people, besides Tories and Labour supporters....
I think that Osborne may have calculated that the people affected by the CTC cut would mostly have voted Labour anyway, so they form a relatively easy target for Government expenditure savings.
If Labour want to make anything of it, though, they need to quote some case studies of real people. Overall totals don't have the same impact as real human stories. "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
I completely agree. One feckless baby machine sucking up benefits does more to sell welfare reform than any number of stats, regardless of the fact that such people are very rare and most of those affected by the cuts are in work.
He in for a penny in for a pound on this one now. Labour local Bradford West MP Naz Shah not so keen on it.
So neo con Cameron's answer is forced busing, what an idiot he is, a unfortunately an extremely dangerous one.
How about establishing a Palestinian state, not invading Islamic countries like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, how about not destabilising Syria, not sponsoring Salafist terror groups, not allowing Salafist money in this country, securing our borders and deporting undesirables.
Let's hope Corbyn wins the Labour leadership, Cameron is a dangerous man who will commit us to endless war if he can.
Yeah its all our fault - we should apologise. If only other immigrant groups like the Chinese and Indians could stand up for themselves and express their own cultures in a totalitarian way they could enjoy Rotherham levels of happiness.
I don't see the Chinese and Indians interfering in the Middle East. Cameron is the pro immigration guy anyway. Liberals like him tried busing and forced integration in the 70s in the US, or indeed stealing aboriginal children in Australia, both failed.
You should ask Indians how they feel about Islamist terrorism sponsored by their neighbour, Pakistan.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
The presumption is that lifestyle and working choices will stay the same. In many respects, the hours worked by many of these existing families is designed deliberately to not fall foul of benefit thresholds and caps.
The test for me is whether these families will be worse off in reality rather than on paper. I suspect that the vast majority will obtain employment, work additional hours and be paid a decent wage and better off in the long run.
Whilst we're in this boom, the Gov't should cut alot further and deeper. Capital projects should perhaps be delayed for the inevitable bust too if possible.
Is it really a boom? Doesn't feel very boomy. Still lots of retraction going on.
It's a boom, generally people only ever mention a boom AFTER it's happened, when we're in the bust. I don't recall anyone mentioning a boom in 2007 either - but it was there.
Oh 2007 was obviously a boom at the time, at least if you worked in the City. I remember working on deals at the time and giving advice to clients that they really ought to think very carefully about doing the deals that they were doing because they depended on some optimistic assumptions. The clients did the deals and they regretted them.
I was not thanked for the advice at the time and I was not thought of with any greater affection when my advice turned out to be well-founded.
Strange, but human. I've occasionally lost clients, because I gave them good advice that they didn't want to hear. I destroyed their dreams (which would have turned into nightmares).
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows tha0,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families eaunfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Taking less tax off people is not a subsidy. Giving people less subsidy is not a tax.
Repeat three times.
Giving all pensioners free heating and bus passes is a subsidy.
Correct - should be means tested for all new pensioners.
Would that be a net saving, after accounting for the administration? Would that change your mind?
Or scrap both payments and increase the state pension by similar amount ?
I think that Osborne may have calculated that the people affected by the CTC cut would mostly have voted Labour anyway, so they form a relatively easy target for Government expenditure savings. "
I think that Osborne may have calculated that the people affected by the CTC cut would mostly have voted Labour anyway, so they form a relatively easy target for Government expenditure savings. "
"Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off." So if a family has one worker working 40 hours a week then it is getting paid £4.90 per hour. That is illegal. So the calculation must be based on a family only having one worker doing less than 30 hours a week.....
Interesting stuff from every Tory's favourite Labour MP ...
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers. Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget. The analysis shows tha0,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year. - 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families eaunfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
You cant see anything wrong with a system that gave people on £30,000 a year £3,000 in tax credits?
I can see a lot wrong with taking £3,000 away from working families with an income of £20,000 a year in order to subsidise wealthy pensioners and people inheriting houses worth £1 million. .
Taking less tax off people is not a subsidy. Giving people less subsidy is not a tax.
Repeat three times.
Giving all pensioners free heating and bus passes is a subsidy.
Correct - should be means tested for all new pensioners.
Would that be a net saving, after accounting for the administration? Would that change your mind?
Or scrap both payments and increase the state pension by similar amount ?
Certainly in the case of winter fuel, I'd be in favour.
Having said that, I don't think of the state pension as contributory any more (and would reduce and eliminate aspects which are) whereas I know many on here would prefer more contributory benefits.
Now for a family to have two workers and only earn £10,226 we have two part timer s with circa 16 hours or less of hours worked each week..... If just one works a normal 40 hours then their income will greatly exceed the benefit loss. So there is an incentive to work a normal level of hours.
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
Yes, the Broxtowe numbers were a real eye-opener - 66 votes cast in total, leading to a CLP nomination for Corbyn.
Seems Arctic ice levels have been quietly dropped as the Gold Standard of climate change indication, after they, er....looks at shoes....mumbles to self... grew by a third in the cool summer of 2013....
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
For sure. But if it was a Kendall poll, then you ought not to deduct 6 points from Corbyn's alleged lead.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
Seems Arctic ice levels have been quietly dropped as the Gold Standard of climate change indication, after they, er....looks at shoes....mumbles to self... grew by a third in the cool summer of 2013....
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
Yes, the Broxtowe numbers were a real eye-opener - 66 votes cast in total, leading to a CLP nomination for Corbyn.
And remember, this is (was) a marginal seat, that labour had held for thirteen years, and we are led to believe has a very active team of canvassers and councillors etc. 66 isnt many when you think about it.
Turnout i suspect in the main ballot might be quite low.
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
Yes, the Broxtowe numbers were a real eye-opener - 66 votes cast in total, leading to a CLP nomination for Corbyn.
And remember, this is (was) a marginal seat, that labour had held for thirteen years, and we are led to believe has a very active team of canvassers and councillors etc. 66 isnt many when you think about it.
Turnout i suspect in the main ballot might be quite low.
The size of the Unite registration dump will be hugely interesting. They are now texting their members to register them, as someone pointed out yesterday.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It's also a trap.
If everything is a trap designed to trip Labour up at some stage Osborne is going to come a cropper. It's not the way to develop coherent, sustainable policy - ask Gordon Brown.
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
For sure. But if it was a Kendall poll, then you ought not to deduct 6 points from Corbyn's alleged lead.
I reckon there'll be a shy Yvette/Liz vote.
How does the Kendall poll deduct points from Corbyn's lead? The poll reports Corbyn has 15 point lead!
The NCPolitics article is excellent and I disagree with it. That is giving me kittens. But I'll explain my view.
First off, I give no weight to twitter. It's where empty vessels make most noise. It tells us about enthusiasm, not numbers. That is as true of party elections as wider elections.
Secondly, I am very wary of relying on second or third hand reports of polls that we have not seen and that may have been selectively leaked with an agenda behind them.
That leaves us with the CLP data, which I do give a lot of weight to. These are real votes cast by real people who are going to have a real say in the process at a later date.
One table that the NCPolitics article gives is worth careful study: the CLP nominations in 2010. Ed Miliband did far better with the CLPs than with the membership as a whole (and David Miliband did better with the membership than with the CLPs). In that election he was the most leftwing serious candidate.
Now it may well be that the Labour party as a whole has moved leftwards. But that seems to me to be fairly clear evidence that the Labour membership is quite a bit more rightwing than the activists who turn up to CLP votes.
If that's so, we can expect Jeremy Corbyn to do less well than the raw CLP figures suggest.
Is it impossible for Jeremy Corbyn to win? No. He has a puncher's chance (which is more than Liz Kendall now seems to have). He is helped by blunders like Andy Burnham made yesterday who probably lost quite a lot of votes after his flipflopping. Most of those lost votes will have gone to Jeremy Corbyn. But he needs to land a haymaker on the first round because he just isn't transfer-friendly enough to progress much more afterwards. Right now it seems unlikely that he has quite enough power. He can't be discounted. But 5/1 for me on the limited data we have seems too short.
Comments
I'd be interested to read a proper analysis of why actually, whether:
- it's money that would have been paid in, say, July but has come it at June;
- it's simply the result of an improvement in the economy;
- it's the result of former improvements filtering through (no more losses to set against, etc.);
- it's established businesses coming to the UK and/or choosing to pay more tax here;
- something else.
I guess pairing could achieve the latter...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/19634c3e-2349-11e5-9c4e-a775d2b173ca.html#axzz3gVYH1uTd
It does make you wonder what kind of supervision the local councillors were providing beforehand.
There's been a lot said about aggressive corporate tax avoidance, it would be interesting if this is contributing, as well as a a general uptick in the economy.
I'd also hazard a guess that a recovering financial services sector is responsible for a considerable amount of the increase. Another possible factor is that companies paid taxes up front where possible either pending the outcome of the election or due to new HMRC rules from previous budgets.
"Unity is overrated." There were plenty of people grumbling that phrase following Labour’s defeat in May. While Miliband had ‘kept the party together’, all it had led to was another, heavier defeat. And what’s the point in that?
But now we see what disunity looks like. Last night’s rebellion on the welfare vote was, in terms of number of the MPs voting against the whip, the tenth largest Labour has seen in the last decade. 48 MPs, over 20% of the Parliamentary Labour Party, broke the whip and voted against the welfare bill - you can see the full list here.
Around 19 MPs who rebelled are from the 2015 intake, with several more post-2010 by-election arrivals. This certainly suggests that there has been a shift to the left in the PLP’s make up over the past few years.
From a rough count, 16 of those nominated Jeremy Corbyn (including Corbyn himself), 14 Andy Burnham, nine Yvette Cooper and one Liz Kendall.
Both Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper fell into line, following rows with Harriet Harman, where both had argued for a tougher line. MPs gossiped yesterday that both had been considering breaking the whip at different points, but each camp is adamant their stance has remained unchanged over the past week. No one knowing the scale of the rebellion in the build-up to the vote appears to have been fertile ground for rumours to gain traction - even if they were a little far-fetched.
In the minutes following the vote, Burnham issued a statement saying that if he is elected leader, Labour will fight bill “word by word, line by line”.
Without good roads, railways, airports, ports, energy, power generation, broadband and housing no one can do much else and businesses won't invest and be able to grow.
I was not thanked for the advice at the time and I was not thought of with any greater affection when my advice turned out to be well-founded.
It was a boom. 90% of my post was junk mail offering me money. It made 1988 look parsimonious.
On the other hand I think there's a good chance he'll decide to run as an independent, which would mirror the Perot effect in '92. He has the money to self fund and the ego, i wouldn't be surprised if he went for it.
Or is that due to "poverty" and "not listening to community leaders " ?
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2015/7/20/tax-avoidance-bills-deliver-600m-for-revenue
The tax authority has reported its total yield from compliance work last year at £26.6bn, up 43 per cent compared to 2011-12.
Every day.
Twice.
And 3 times on Sunday.
First, you can't get sued when it all goes wrong.
Secondly, if the advice was any good, the chances are high that far more fees will be generated by the clients ignoring your advice than by following it.
There could be a baker's dozen of recessions during that time. But it's necessary to get Britain ready to face the challenges of the 21st Century and stay prosperous.
Frank Field MP today questions why the Government has decided to launch a full frontal attack on over three million of Britain’s strivers.
Frank commissioned the House of Commons Library to analyse the impact on ‘strivers’ of the lower tax credit earnings threshold and the increased taper rate of 48%, which were both announced in last week’s Budget.
The analysis shows that:
- 3.2 million strivers will lose an average of £1,350 next year.
- 754,900 families earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year will lose up to £2,184 next year. Families earning £10,226 will be exactly £1,500 worse off.
- 51,600 families earning between £20,000 and £30,000 will be made worse off by up to £2,884 next year.
- 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. This is a higher withdrawal of income than that imposed on the country’s highest earners. Families earning £6,410 a year will be £1,200 worse off as a result.
Commenting on the figures Frank said: ‘Before, during, and after the general election campaign the Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to protect and advance the interests of Britain’s strivers. Yet in his first post-election Budget the Chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job. So here is Labour’s opportunity to put itself once again on the side of Britain’s army of strivers. First we must fight this double whammy of unfair cuts being forced upon them and, second, we need to push for improvements to the Chancellor’s living wage proposal so that low paid workers genuinely are better off.’
http://www.frankfield.com/latest-news/press-releases/news.aspx?p=1021009
Also when they get further pay rises the previous steps will be eliminated - and they will keep more of those further rises.
Added bonus is they are not subsidised by the state.
It's much better to have a steady stream of well-thought through strategic infrastructure.
http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/07/corbyns-chances-are-far-better-than-odds-suggest.html/
Giving people less subsidy is not a tax.
Repeat three times.
(requires a facebook account)
Andy Burnham is not feeling the warmth here. Massive tactical mistake on his behalf.
Carry on Labour..
Welfare cuts are about choices. The deficit must be cut. I'd prefer to increase the minimum wage and incentivise people into well-paid jobs with a strong economy rather than cut education, health, or defence.
Where I do agree with you is on pensions. I think they're too gold-plated now and the triple lock should be reformed.
It is the route to the poorhouse to ignore Matt Smith when it comes to political betting, I've taken £50 @ 6.0 on Corbyn off the back of this.
So long as Kendall doesn't win I'll do nicely
And still they wonder why they lost...
Andy +11, Yvette +18, Liz -9, Jezza -8
Many of my friends and colleagues had courtesy of Nigel Lawson, clubbed together with their £30k MIRAS allowances and lumbering themselves with inappropriate properties. Once the London house price bubbled burst in 1989 many of these folks were left in negative equity in their mid-20s just as they were trying to start relationships etc - tough times. It took 7 years for inflation adjusted London house prices to return to their Autumn 1988 peak.
My definition of a London boom is when everybody gets carried away and thinks things are only going in one direction - stock markets rising, house prices rising, bonuses, art booming and the real litmus test - London black cabs never had so good. The alarm bells should start ringing when people start borrowing money to invest in the stock markets.
Will there be another bust? 100% yes - when - who knows.
I think that Osborne may have calculated that the people affected by the CTC cut would mostly have voted Labour anyway, so they form a relatively easy target for Government expenditure savings.
If Labour want to make anything of it, though, they need to quote some case studies of real people. Overall totals don't have the same impact as real human stories. "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week?
What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week?
What is the solution to increasing the family income?
What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
OK, so it's the women's teams, but still...
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
So if a family has one worker working 40 hours a week then it is getting paid £3.50 per hour. That is illegal. So the calculation must be based on a family only having one worker doing less than 20 hours a week.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33594654
Won't someone please knit some jumpers for those poor hypothermic Polar bears?
The test for me is whether these families will be worse off in reality rather than on paper. I suspect that the vast majority will obtain employment, work additional hours and be paid a decent wage and better off in the long run.
Ryanair – Prestwick's only passenger airline — then announced it was cutting its winter schedule from the airport from 42 flights per week to 13.
So if a family has one worker working 40 hours a week then it is getting paid £4.90 per hour. That is illegal. So the calculation must be based on a family only having one worker doing less than 30 hours a week.....
Having said that, I don't think of the state pension as contributory any more (and would reduce and eliminate aspects which are) whereas I know many on here would prefer more contributory benefits.
If just one works a normal 40 hours then their income will greatly exceed the benefit loss. So there is an incentive to work a normal level of hours.
The science is settled, you are a right wing oil funded seal clubber....
I reckon there'll be a shy Yvette/Liz vote.
Paragraph 4: "But they say 2013 was a one-off"
I mean FFS.
Turnout i suspect in the main ballot might be quite low.
Considering the amount of benefits porn on TV, there really is a gap for a serious docu on the working poor.
I'm surprised it hasn't been done.
First off, I give no weight to twitter. It's where empty vessels make most noise. It tells us about enthusiasm, not numbers. That is as true of party elections as wider elections.
Secondly, I am very wary of relying on second or third hand reports of polls that we have not seen and that may have been selectively leaked with an agenda behind them.
That leaves us with the CLP data, which I do give a lot of weight to. These are real votes cast by real people who are going to have a real say in the process at a later date.
One table that the NCPolitics article gives is worth careful study: the CLP nominations in 2010. Ed Miliband did far better with the CLPs than with the membership as a whole (and David Miliband did better with the membership than with the CLPs). In that election he was the most leftwing serious candidate.
Now it may well be that the Labour party as a whole has moved leftwards. But that seems to me to be fairly clear evidence that the Labour membership is quite a bit more rightwing than the activists who turn up to CLP votes.
If that's so, we can expect Jeremy Corbyn to do less well than the raw CLP figures suggest.
Is it impossible for Jeremy Corbyn to win? No. He has a puncher's chance (which is more than Liz Kendall now seems to have). He is helped by blunders like Andy Burnham made yesterday who probably lost quite a lot of votes after his flipflopping. Most of those lost votes will have gone to Jeremy Corbyn. But he needs to land a haymaker on the first round because he just isn't transfer-friendly enough to progress much more afterwards. Right now it seems unlikely that he has quite enough power. He can't be discounted. But 5/1 for me on the limited data we have seems too short.
*cough*Prestwick*cough*