@chrisshipitv: The Treasury also confirms today progression pay will be abolished across the Civil Service (means no more pay rises for length of service)
Bloody Hell! That is a huge change and one which really will put the old chat amongst les oiseaux. I wonder if local government will be forced to follow suit.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart. Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach. To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another. It rewards bad behaviour and poor decision making. Thats why widescale benefit sanctions have had such an impact. For the first time some people are actually been held accountable for the decisions they make in life. It is a shocker. Having kids is extremely expensive. If I do with my wife - as two working parents - we expect our income to drop thousands of pounds, or to spend thousands of pounds on childcare. We will be far more 'worse off'. However, that is a choice we will need to review according to our finances and decide what kids we can afford and when. I see no reason why others should not have to make similar choices. I recognise that life on a low income is no cakewalk and at the moment there are quite generous tax credits available from taxes I pay that do to some extent insulate many families from the impact of those same choices. But they are cutting child tax credits for current claimants. Are single parents in low paid work expected to magically get a pay rise to compensate? Or give their children up for adoption to middle class families?
Or maybe use a few more hours child care paid by the government and work a few extra hours? The apparent inflexibility and resistance to change is terrifying. Why do you assume a low paid single parent can not alter aspects of life to improve outcomes?
This is the left's problem in a nutshell - we support welfare cuts but oppose any that are real - because we cannot expect any poor person to change their behaviour.
@chrisshipitv: The Treasury also confirms today progression pay will be abolished across the Civil Service (means no more pay rises for length of service)
Unless it means more ranks... or more people on higher ranks...
Someone else who remembers the side effects of the prices and incomes policies of the early seventies.
@chrisshipitv: The Treasury also confirms today progression pay will be abolished across the Civil Service (means no more pay rises for length of service)
Good....any such automatic payrises based solely on length of services are a terrible idea.
If some loony wins in the UK or adjacent country at least we can go to another country. If Trump wins in the USA even a one way ticket to Mars may sound attractive. If he won the GOP nomination, unlikely, Hilary would surely walk it. I hope!!!!!
@chrisshipitv: The Treasury also confirms today progression pay will be abolished across the Civil Service (means no more pay rises for length of service)
Fair play George, wasn't expecting that. He is serious about the CS reforming and saving proper money.
It went completely unsaid over the past 5 years that when the CS had a pay deal imposed for 1%, the vast majority of them got way more than that, due to the 'Seniority" system giving them an annual "pay grade" increase.
Interesting. Would you not agree that given the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on the contention that Co2 and other gases retain a little more of the sun's energy than would otherwise be the case, that the behaviour of the sun itself is by definition a far bigger factor in the rising and falling of the earth's temperatures?
That logic doesn't follow, for two reasons:
1) The retainability could be a lot more variable than the Sun's activity. For example, if the Sun's activity varies by 10%, while the retainability of the energy could vary from 30% to 60%.
2) The greenhouse effect model also retains the cumulative energy built up in the atmosphere, not just the extra added to it from the Sun that year.
In terms of each increasing or decreasing by a percentage of itself, I'm happy to accept what you say. However, in real terms, we are comparing horses and ants in terms of their contribution. The notion that any form of 'greenhouse effect' could even begin to equal the impact of the very energy source that the effect depends on is surely self-evidently risible, would you not agree?
I don't agree. The dark side of Mercury is a lot colder than the dark side of Venus, despite Venus being further away. That shows the greenhouse effect can be a lot larger than the amount of heat energy reaching the planet.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the ...
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
It rewards bad behaviour and poor decision making. Thats why widescale benefit sanctions have had such an impact. For the first time some people are actually been held accountable for the decisions they make in life. It is a shocker.
Having kids is extremely expensive. If I do with my wife - as two working parents - we expect our income to drop thousands of pounds, or to spend thousands of pounds on childcare. We will be far more 'worse off'. However, that is a choice we will need to review according to our finances and decide what kids we can afford and when.
I see no reason why others should not have to make similar choices. I recognise that life on a low income is no cakewalk and at the moment there are quite generous tax credits available from taxes I pay that do to some extent insulate many families from the impact of those same choices.
But they are cutting child tax credits for current claimants. Are single parents in low paid work expected to magically get a pay rise to compensate? Or give their children up for adoption to middle class families?
God forbid people would have to change their behaviour! Perhaps cut back a little here, work a little bit more there. To paraphrase the Great Lady, the problem with social welfare payments is that you get too used to spending someone else's money.
If my gross income remains the same, my net income will be reduced 2016/17 vs 2015/16, because my taxes will be going up about 4% - the solution for me is to work harder or cut back. Why should it be any different for someone on social welfare payments?
It is our CLP nomination meeting on Friday. I'll be voting JC. I'll report back on what happens, turnout, etc. around 9ish Friday evening. God willing.
The New Labour machine muzzled Old Labour, but with Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership race they have re-claimed their voice - and what a voice it is…!
"I’d rather have one Leftist Jeremy Corbyn than 650 Nazi Paedophile MPs running Britain [..]
By Stanley Collymore
Incredibly these Nazi Labtories are the very elements of whatever sub-species of creatures you may wish to label them as that have infiltrated, usurped and manifestly brought into discernible disrepute what was traditionally the working peoples Labour Party, and have unquestionably done so for their own venal, narcissistic and deviously self-serving ends. Now we have them bizarrely and quite unbelievably, barefacedly lyingly claiming and what’s more furthermore unconvincingly publicly postulating that Jeremy Corbyn: who they’re absolutely petrified of because" – (continued on Pg 94)
It is our CLP nomination meeting on Friday. I'll be voting JC. I'll report back on what happens, turnout, etc. around 9ish Friday evening. God willing.
Does each CLP nomination carry the same weight as a single member vote? Or is it even less significant - CLP nominations not counting for the final result at all?
I've been on the Trump betting bandwagon for about 2 months now, even before Trump was a candidate, and I'll tell you why.
Trump is the American Berlusconi, if Berlusconi dominated italian politics for almost 20 years through the power of TV, then so can Trump.
The extreme love-hate relationship between Trump and the media is his warp engine propelling him at enormous speeds forward, example: Last week CNN mentioned his name once every 5 minutes on average all day everyday for the whole week. Sure they are blasting him, but on topics which the average republican actually agrees with Trump, and I'm not sure about the McCain comments because the average republican hates McCain ever since he called them wackos and crazies.
Case in point, the screaming DeMoine Register editorial, Iowa's leading newspaper, calling for Trump to drop out not because of his policies but because he's starving Jeb Bush from oxygen and prevents Kasich from being on the debates:
"In just five weeks, he has polluted the political waters to such an extent that serious candidates who actually have the credentials to serve as president can't get their message across to voters. In fact, some of them can't even win a spot in one of the upcoming debates, since those slots are reserved for candidates leading in the polls."
Now that's precisely the kind of media moaning that attracts republican voters to Trump.
It is our CLP nomination meeting on Friday. I'll be voting JC. I'll report back on what happens, turnout, etc. around 9ish Friday evening. God willing.
Does each CLP nomination carry the same weight as a single member vote? Or is it even less significant - CLP nominations not counting for the final result at all?
The latter. They are essentially vanity by the CLPs.
@CarolineLucas: Unbelievable - @uklabour announces they'll abstain *again* - this time on Govt's terrible Finance Bill. Official Opposition? - clue in name
It is our CLP nomination meeting on Friday. I'll be voting JC. I'll report back on what happens, turnout, etc. around 9ish Friday evening. God willing.
Does each CLP nomination carry the same weight as a single member vote? Or is it even less significant - CLP nominations not counting for the final result at all?
The latter. They are essentially vanity by the CLPs.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the ...
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
It rewards bad behaviour and poor decision making. Thats why widescale benefit sanctions have had such an impact. For the first time some people are actually been held accountable for the decisions they make in life. It is a shocker.
Having kids is extremely expensive. If I do with my wife - as two working parents - we expect our income to drop thousands of pounds, or to spend thousands of pounds on childcare. We will be far more 'worse off'. However, that is a choice we will need to review according to our finances and decide what kids we can afford and when.
I see no reason why others should not have to make similar choices. I recognise that life on a low income is no cakewalk and at the moment there are quite generous tax credits available from taxes I pay that do to some extent insulate many families from the impact of those same choices.
But they are cutting child tax credits for current claimants. Are single parents in low paid work expected to magically get a pay rise to compensate? Or give their children up for adoption to middle class families?
God forbid people would have to change their behaviour! Perhaps cut back a little here, work a little bit more there. To paraphrase the Great Lady, the problem with social welfare payments is that you get too used to spending someone else's money.
If my gross income remains the same, my net income will be reduced 2016/17 vs 2015/16, because my taxes will be going up about 4% - the solution for me is to work harder or cut back. Why should it be any different for someone on social welfare payments?
Those getting child tax credits were not singled out. Child benefit was cut for existing claimants too. We cannot cut back what we spend on welfare without cutting back the money given to existing claimants. Personally, I'd also cut the amount given to wealthy pensioners.
Comments
Imagine being Bercow though. Sniggers in every corner...same for poor old Danczuk.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
It rewards bad behaviour and poor decision making. Thats why widescale benefit sanctions have had such an impact. For the first time some people are actually been held accountable for the decisions they make in life. It is a shocker.
Having kids is extremely expensive. If I do with my wife - as two working parents - we expect our income to drop thousands of pounds, or to spend thousands of pounds on childcare. We will be far more 'worse off'. However, that is a choice we will need to review according to our finances and decide what kids we can afford and when.
I see no reason why others should not have to make similar choices. I recognise that life on a low income is no cakewalk and at the moment there are quite generous tax credits available from taxes I pay that do to some extent insulate many families from the impact of those same choices.
But they are cutting child tax credits for current claimants. Are single parents in low paid work expected to magically get a pay rise to compensate? Or give their children up for adoption to middle class families?
Or maybe use a few more hours child care paid by the government and work a few extra hours? The apparent inflexibility and resistance to change is terrifying. Why do you assume a low paid single parent can not alter aspects of life to improve outcomes?
This is the left's problem in a nutshell - we support welfare cuts but oppose any that are real - because we cannot expect any poor person to change their behaviour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11752688/Labour-wont-be-saved-by-the-utterly-dismal-Andy-Burnham.html
It went completely unsaid over the past 5 years that when the CS had a pay deal imposed for 1%, the vast majority of them got way more than that, due to the 'Seniority" system giving them an annual "pay grade" increase.
If my gross income remains the same, my net income will be reduced 2016/17 vs 2015/16, because my taxes will be going up about 4% - the solution for me is to work harder or cut back. Why should it be any different for someone on social welfare payments?
It is our CLP nomination meeting on Friday. I'll be voting JC. I'll report back on what happens, turnout, etc. around 9ish Friday evening. God willing.
"I’d rather have one Leftist Jeremy Corbyn than 650 Nazi Paedophile MPs running Britain [..]
By Stanley Collymore
Incredibly these Nazi Labtories are the very elements of whatever sub-species of creatures you may wish to label them as that have infiltrated, usurped and manifestly brought into discernible disrepute what was traditionally the working peoples Labour Party, and have unquestionably done so for their own venal, narcissistic and deviously self-serving ends. Now we have them bizarrely and quite unbelievably, barefacedly lyingly claiming and what’s more furthermore unconvincingly publicly postulating that Jeremy Corbyn: who they’re absolutely petrified of because" – (continued on Pg 94)
http://collymore.over-blog.com/2015/07/i-d-rather-have-one-leftist-jeremy-corbyn-than-650-nazi-paedophile-mps-running-britain-any-day.html
Trump is the American Berlusconi, if Berlusconi dominated italian politics for almost 20 years through the power of TV, then so can Trump.
The extreme love-hate relationship between Trump and the media is his warp engine propelling him at enormous speeds forward, example: Last week CNN mentioned his name once every 5 minutes on average all day everyday for the whole week.
Sure they are blasting him, but on topics which the average republican actually agrees with Trump, and I'm not sure about the McCain comments because the average republican hates McCain ever since he called them wackos and crazies.
Case in point, the screaming DeMoine Register editorial, Iowa's leading newspaper, calling for Trump to drop out not because of his policies but because he's starving Jeb Bush from oxygen and prevents Kasich from being on the debates:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2015/07/20/donald-trump-end-campaign/30439253/
"In just five weeks, he has polluted the political waters to such an extent that serious candidates who actually have the credentials to serve as president can't get their message across to voters. In fact, some of them can't even win a spot in one of the upcoming debates, since those slots are reserved for candidates leading in the polls."
Now that's precisely the kind of media moaning that attracts republican voters to Trump.
new thread