In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
So how did Cam's vote go up from 56 MPs to 90 MPs between rounds.
Cause Ken Clarke had been eliminated in an earlier round.
Yeah, they knew about that result because it was a separate ballot. I repeat in case you don't get it:
During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
So the lowest candidate is eliminated, until we have two candidates, and the winner is the one with the most votes. Sounds a lot like AV to me.
There's a big difference. Conservative MPs can change their votes between rounds. So previous supporters cannot be relied upon to stay loyal.
I can't believe I have just written an AV-related post.
Once you start you can't stop talking and thinking about AV.
In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.
In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.
In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.
I think you're being a bit obtuse. You can think of an exhaustive ballot as a form of AV in which the electorate gets a peak at the results before declaring their second preference.
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
Was two separate FPTP ballots, with a third if you include the final membership (Dave v David).
"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.
On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.
Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."
So FPTP with only two candidates is a form of AV? I guess so.
You can only mark 'ONE' X on your ballot though!
You can put 1 next to your first preference and 2 next to your second preference. Any Returning Officer worth his salt would count it accordingly and redistribute your preference if required.
"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.
On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.
Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
That's an irrelevant point. A single voter can vote for more than one candidate in an exhaustive ballot process. The significant differences between this and AV are that the voters can see the lay of the land at each stage and can change their vote. Apart from that, AV just compresses the process into a single blind ballot.
So FPTP with only two candidates is a form of AV? I guess so.
You can only mark 'ONE' X on your ballot though!
You can put 1 next to your first preference and 2 next to your second preference. Any Returning Officer worth his salt would count it accordingly and redistribute your preference if required.
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....
What the Tories said in May is no concern of mine, what a person does for a living and their level of income is mostly a factor of decisions they have made on top of the decisions their parents have made. Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, comes, from what he has posted on here, from a very modest background and now, also from what he has posted on here, earns a very substantial income. What decisions lay behind that change of circumstance? I dunno, ask him and those like him. I doubt the answer will be income support.
So you believe that if people are poor it's all their fault. A very Victorian view, if I may so. You must regret not only the existence of a welfare state, but also the NHS, state-funded education and so on. After all, self-reliant folk should be able to buy their own health insurance, and their own child's education, surely not?
Read Mr.Observer's post below.
I've read it. It doesn't appear to support your POV.
Try reading it again and think about what he said.
Now I am off for my afternoon walk. Thanks for the conversation.
P.S. In another post you complained about another poster putting words into your mouth, may I suggest you could, with some expectation of gain, do well to reflect on Matthew Chapter 7 verse 3.
On your last point: I'm not religious.
Being patronising doesn't really add to your argument.
"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.
On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.
Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."
In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.
SLAB get their act together - that's how you do opposition.
BBC Scotland News @BBCScotlandNews 5m5 minutes ago Scottish Labour tables Holyrood motion calling for resignation of Police Scotland's chief constable Sir Stephen House http://bbc.in/1KiSXcf
In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.
They did cast MANY votes.
But not ALL in the SAME round!
No, they ALL voted in the SAME round.
They didn't cast all their votes in the same round!
Was two separate FPTP ballots, with a final membership FPTP round for Dave v. David.
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
Was two separate FPTP ballots, with a third if you include the final membership (Dave v David).
In all seriousness, Sunil (some of my previous posts may have been a touch deliberately awkward), the earlier rounds were not FPTP. They were LDNPTP (Last Does Not Pass The Post).
I won't re-iterate my contention (from the glorious referendum days) that FPTP should really be called F (since there is no P) and that AV could then be usefully re-branded as FPTP (with P = 50%). Oh whoops, I just did.
"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.
On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.
Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."
The system the Tories use to elect their leader is called the exhaustive ballot. The system the Labour party are using is called the exhausting ballot.
The system the Tories use to elect their leader is called the exhaustive ballot. The system the Labour party are using is called the exhausting ballot.
I'll get my coat.
That was actually quite funny! (Sorry of I missed it, but who did you vote for, if at all)?
We're going to absolutely smash Australia in the next test. We've dropped Ballance and picked the Ginger run machine Jonny Bairstow, Prince of Yorkshire
We've dropped Ballance and picked the Ginger run machine Jonny Bairstow, Prince of Yorkshire
I wish they'd pick Rashid. Give us more variation in attack, and from what Lyth and Bell are up to, we wouldn;t exactly be losing in the runs department.
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
Was two separate FPTP ballots, with a third if you include the final membership (Dave v David).
In all seriousness, Sunil (some of my previous posts may have been a touch deliberately awkward), the earlier rounds were not FPTP. They were LDNPTP (Last Does Not Pass The Post).
I won't re-iterate my contention (from the glorious referendum days) that FPTP should really be called F (since there is no P) and that AV could then be usefully re-branded as FPTP (with P = 50%). Oh whoops, I just did.
OK, well in round 1, we had three winners' berths (ie. three "prizes").
Filled by Dave, Liam and David.
Then in round 2, there were two winners' berths (two "prizes").
Filled by Dave and David.
Remember, it's an example of an "Exhaustive Ballot".
In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.
I think you're being a bit obtuse. You can think of an exhaustive ballot as a form of AV in which the electorate gets a peak at the results before declaring their second preference.
More fundamentally - you can change your vote from round 1 to round 2 *even if your first selection is still in the race*
"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.
On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.
Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."
He did go on to say that he would be voting for In.
I thought it was a very well-argued piece.
Yes, it was. As I see it the potential problems for the pro-Europeans are (a) their support for UK entry into the Euro (b) the fact that being a good pro-European under Blair mostly seemed to involve obeying every EU diktat whilst Club Med cheerfully ignored them and (c) they have been too trusting in the EU to deliver their half of a bargain - qv. the CAP.
Think we might end up with another 55-45 result :-)
We're going to absolutely smash Australia in the next test. We've dropped Ballance and picked the Ginger run machine Jonny Bairstow, Prince of Yorkshire
This has been a very helpful (from my perspective) conversation on here today. Thanks to all Tory posters for their explanations on benefits etc. I don't agree with you, but I do get the point you are making. I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making. I worry that lines in the sand harm too many blameless people and that long term this damages the society of which we are all a part. This is no doubt based on my own experience. I have seen people make lifestyle choices around benefits - they were doing it back in the 80s and clearly do it now - but my sense is that the vast majority access welfare because they have no other choice, not because of decisions they have made but because of what life has thrown at them. I am pretty certain that had I found myself unemployed today, I would not have had the time and space to get myself back on my feet in the way that I was able to back in the 90s during the time of the Major government. And that would have been a complete waste for me, my family and, as it turns out, for a lot of other people too.
This has been a very helpful (from my perspective) conversation on here today. Thanks to all Tory posters for their explanations on benefits etc. I don't agree with you, but I do get the point you are making. I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making. I worry that lines in the sand harm too many blameless people and that long term this damages the society of which we are all a part. This is no doubt based on my own experience. I have seen people make lifestyle choices around benefits - they were doing it back in the 80s and clearly do it now - but my sense is that the vast majority access welfare because they have no other choice, not because of decisions they have made but because of what life has thrown at them. I am pretty certain that had I found myself unemployed today, I would not have had the time and space to get myself back on my feet in the way that I was able to back in the 90s during the time of the Major government. And that would have been a complete waste for me, my family and, as it turns out, for a lot of other people too.
In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.
I think you're being a bit obtuse. You can think of an exhaustive ballot as a form of AV in which the electorate gets a peak at the results before declaring their second preference.
More fundamentally - you can change your vote from round 1 to round 2 *even if your first selection is still in the race*
...which you can't do in AV, as you cast your preferences all at once...
We're going to absolutely smash Australia in the next test. We've dropped Ballance and picked the Ginger run machine Jonny Bairstow, Prince of Yorkshire
"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.
On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.
Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."
He did go on to say that he would be voting for In.
I thought it was a very well-argued piece.
Yes, it was. As I see it the potential problems for the pro-Europeans is (a) their support for UK entry into the Euro and (b) the fact that being a good pro-European under Blair mostly seemed to involve obeying every EU diktat whilst Club Med cheerfully ignored them and trusting the EU to deliver their half of a bargain - qv. the CAP.
Think we might end up with another 55-45 result :-)
Can we not call them pro-Europeans? I am not anti-the continent of Europe or the people that live there. I am merely against a supranational organisation that resides there.
Tbh it's ridiculous in general that we can elect governments on such small percentages. It hardly produces an efficient political system either; divisive figures, rather than consensus builders are produced, who implement short-term, political decisions instead of polices with the long-term future of the country in mind. And we wonder why there are so many problems in this country.
The alternative is a coalition like the one in 2010 which the nominal support of 60% of voters which had to break a lot of the promises that the parties involved had made before the election. We know voters don't like that either, going by the reduction in LD MPs from 57 to 8.
The system the Tories use to elect their leader is called the exhaustive ballot. The system the Labour party are using is called the exhausting ballot.
I'll get my coat.
Labour's system is stupid. The tories sensible. There is nothing wrong with having a series of 'knock out ballots' - like the tories to get to a final two who also rank some level of confidence in elected MPs. Each ballot is different and the choices are clear. But labour turn their ballot into a guessing game where you have no idea how effective any second preferences are going to be and who that second preference might in reality be campaingning against since everyone else is in the same boat. The logic of the parliamentary party at least having some control is kicked into touch when the ty nominate someone they do not actually want to win! If this is the way they run their own party then keep them away from running the country
Tbh it's ridiculous in general that we can elect governments on such small percentages. It hardly produces an efficient political system either; divisive figures, rather than consensus builders are produced, who implement short-term, political decisions instead of polices with the long-term future of the country in mind. And we wonder why there are so many problems in this country.
The alternative is a coalition like the one in 2010 which the nominal support of 60% of voters which had to break a lot of the promises that the parties involved had made before the election. We know voters don't like that either, going by the reduction in LD MPs from 57 to 8.
I don't understand how "short-term, political decisions instead of polices with the long-term future of the country" is a product of FPTP. It seems to be a product of democracy, along with a generally myopic population. Only a benevolent dictatorship would sort that out.
Consensus politics means fewer long-term decisions, not more; but the idea is a sham anyway. Cameron leads a consensus as he did in 2010, it's just the players in terms of MPs are in his party. The voters didn't change particularly.
Ultimately, who is to blame for someone being poor doesn't change the situation, nor the social costs caused by poverty.
So, in other words, regardless of how people come to be poor, the state has to absolve people of any blame and keep paying. For example, - A couple have two children, but would like four. - They know that they can't really afford four. This would push them into "poverty". - However, they also know the state will subsidise them with tax credits. - They go ahead and have the two extra children, and the state has to pick up the tab.
Why should their lifestyle choice be subsidised by the state?
Can the edgbaston groundstaff please prepare a wicket that Anderson can use properly too, we need the ball to do something around the 'good' area whereas the Aussies can take more of the pitch out of the equation as their strike bowlers are a bit taller.
If it's an absolute featherbed, it's Jimmy that'll suffer most comparitively.
''I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making.''
This is 100% correct Mr Observer. I think all politicians, but especially labour ones, need to do plenty of hard thinking on Welfare, and some aggressive re-defining.
In cutting benefits the tories are, as RN admitted, affecting some deserving low paid workers for a short time.
In defending the status quo, however, labour are also defending some pretty glaring anomalies and practices.
''You've seen some of them, but quite why a modestly-paid worker in, say, Milton Keynes should be subsidising through her taxes the cleaning bill of City offices is a bit unclear, is it not?''
True I suppose, but it remains to be seen whether the private sector will be able to take up the tax credit slack, even when compelled to by law.
I think low paid workers are, in many cases, bloody amazing. It's difficult to praise them without sounding patronising.
Agreed. A lot of PB Tories react in a negative way to the accusation that the Tories don't care about the poor, but comments' on here today, hardly contradict that view. I'm beginning to think that some believe only middle class Tories, and rich 'wealth creators' contribute anything to this country.
This has been a very helpful (from my perspective) conversation on here today. Thanks to all Tory posters for their explanations on benefits etc. I don't agree with you, but I do get the point you are making. I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making. I worry that lines in the sand harm too many blameless people and that long term this damages the society of which we are all a part. This is no doubt based on my own experience. I have seen people make lifestyle choices around benefits - they were doing it back in the 80s and clearly do it now - but my sense is that the vast majority access welfare because they have no other choice, not because of decisions they have made but because of what life has thrown at them. I am pretty certain that had I found myself unemployed today, I would not have had the time and space to get myself back on my feet in the way that I was able to back in the 90s during the time of the Major government. And that would have been a complete waste for me, my family and, as it turns out, for a lot of other people too.
SO - I very much agree with your sentiments - however we all have to live according to the circumstances of the times. The problem always comes when overgenerous benefits, which should never have been given in the first place, have for economic necessity to be reduced or withdrawn. It did not happen in 2010, as it should have, due to there being a coalition.
It would appear that many agree that children, whilst a personal joy, are the economic responsibility of the parents and not the state. Personally I was always unhappy about child benefits - which were often not spent for the benefit of the children - and did not agree with child tax credits.
Other European countries only give any form of child support for the first three years of its life and seem to manage perfectly well.
''Personally I was always unhappy about child benefits - which were often not spent for the benefit of the children - and did not agree with child tax credits.''
The Philpott case showed the glaring weaknesses of that system.
The significant differences between this and AV are that the voters can see the lay of the land at each stage and can change their vote. Apart from that, AV just compresses the process into a single blind ballot.
No
In AV you can end up having voted for nobody. That is less likely (although technically feasible) in an exhaustive ballot
The significant differences between this and AV are that the voters can see the lay of the land at each stage and can change their vote. Apart from that, AV just compresses the process into a single blind ballot.
No
In AV you can end up having voted for nobody. That is less likely (although technically feasible) in an exhaustive ballot
Not if you fulfill all your preferences you can't.
It looks like Burnham and Cooper have more than 50% support between them but paradoxically that doesn't mean one of them will automatically end up winning the contest given the vagaries of the transfer system.
Ultimately, who is to blame for someone being poor doesn't change the situation, nor the social costs caused by poverty.
So, in other words, regardless of how people come to be poor, the state has to absolve people of any blame and keep paying. For example, - A couple have two children, but would like four. - They know that they can't really afford four. This would push them into "poverty". - However, they also know the state will subsidise them with tax credits. - They go ahead and have the two extra children, and the state has to pick up the tab.
Why should their lifestyle choice be subsidised by the state?
Sure, that's one aspect.
But you could say that the smoker or the morbidly obese or the dangerous sports guy is encouraged by the existence of the NHS, and yet we provide that.
The validity of the comparison depends on how much people choose to have chldren or do those things. And whilst it may not be clear cut I think it's clear there are other things we have to take into account.
The significant differences between this and AV are that the voters can see the lay of the land at each stage and can change their vote. Apart from that, AV just compresses the process into a single blind ballot.
No
In AV you can end up having voted for nobody. That is less likely (although technically feasible) in an exhaustive ballot
"Under both systems if no candidate has an absolute majority in the first round then there are further rounds, with the candidate with the fewest votes being eliminated after each round. However while under the exhaustive ballot each round involves voters returning to cast a new vote, under instant-runoff [ie. AV], voters vote only once. This is possible because, rather than voting for only a single candidate, the voter ranks all of the candidates in order of preference. These preferences are then used to 'transfer' the votes of those whose first preference has been eliminated during the course of the count.
Because the exhaustive ballot involves separate rounds of voting, voters can use the results of one round to inform how they will vote in the next, whereas this is not possible under IRV [ie. AV]. Furthermore, because it is necessary to vote only once, instant-runoff voting has been used for large-scale elections in many places."
I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.
Is this a temporary allegiance?
Its pretty disreputable if you ask me. I do not care which other party you support. I am guessing that the application form asks if you are member of another political party BTW.
''You've seen some of them, but quite why a modestly-paid worker in, say, Milton Keynes should be subsidising through her taxes the cleaning bill of City offices is a bit unclear, is it not?''
True I suppose, but it remains to be seen whether the private sector will be able to take up the tax credit slack, even when compelled to by law.
I think low paid workers are, in many cases, bloody amazing. It's difficult to praise them without sounding patronising.
Agreed. A lot of PB Tories react in a negative way to the accusation that the Tories don't care about the poor, but comments' on here today, hardly contradict that view. I'm beginning to think that some believe only middle class Tories, and rich 'wealth creators' contribute anything to this country.
The poor create the wealth of the rich.
LOL. The poorest of the poor are probably leper beggars in Yemen, or some such. What wealth are they creating for whom? Wealth is created by labour. Not all labour creates wealth though - only that expended in the production of something useful. Greater wealth is created with greater productivity. Which comes with knowledge, training and innovation. So ultimately wealth is created by wise application of knowledge.
Ultimately, who is to blame for someone being poor doesn't change the situation, nor the social costs caused by poverty.
So, in other words, regardless of how people come to be poor, the state has to absolve people of any blame and keep paying. For example, - A couple have two children, but would like four. - They know that they can't really afford four. This would push them into "poverty". - However, they also know the state will subsidise them with tax credits. - They go ahead and have the two extra children, and the state has to pick up the tab.
Why should their lifestyle choice be subsidised by the state?
Sure, that's one aspect.
But you could say that the smoker or the morbidly obese or the dangerous sports guy is encouraged by the existence of the NHS, and yet we provide that.
The validity of the comparison depends on how much people choose to have chldren or do those things. And whilst it may not be clear cut I think it's clear there are other things we have to take into account.
I agree absolutely. It was just one example to illustrate the point. These matters are so complex, that you really need to be able to present a longer and more considered argument than the forum format allows. Each post would be a mini-essay!
I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.
So I'll be the only PBer who won't be voting in the Labour leadership election ?
I won't be voting either, but I'd advise Labour to vote for a woman. Yvette Cooper I'd go for..
I think there's mileage in Labour pushing the Tory anti-woman agenda; it's worth a bash. Considering their current malaise, they have to try something!
@Sunil I voted for Farron, of course. Very very powerful public speaker. Manages to speak human. And knows what he stands for. Lamb almost as good, but not as charismatic. Labour have lost their way IMHO. Instead of knowing what they stand for and showing some leadership by setting out to convince the public, they are trying to follow the public, and as the public are a fickle lot capable of holding umpteen contradictory opinionssimultaneously between them, that means the Labour party bob about helplessly.
To those of you who are about to post something rude about Lib Dems and principles, the point about being in a coalition is that neither side can get exactly what it wants. Why not attack the Tories for giving in to us and going against their principles on tax thresholds, pension triple lock, apprenticeships, snoopers charter, Beecroft etc etc. Since the Tories started governing by themselves they have scrapped the care cap that arose out of Dilnot while pretending they were listening to councils, scuppered social housing while pretending they are helping it, cut the incomes of the lowest earners in work while pretending they are introducing decent pay, cancelled a load of investment outside London, and set out creating more privileges for the better off, such as on inheritance tax, while restricting even further the rights of people to strike. And on top of all that, they are gaming the political system to try to ensure they are in government for perpetuity. And some of it they are doing purely to set political traps. Some of you are celebrating all that. The Labour party has its head up its arse, and the SNP are only interested in using the situation to get independence for Scotland. Nobody knows what the NI MPs will do. Which leaves 8 Lib Dems and Caroline Lucas to counter them
I've depressed myself now. Think I'll go for a lie down.
Some parts of the welfare system remain fraught with moral hazard unfortunately.
Confidentiality limits what I can say but there remain things that would set Mr and Mrs Ordinary Worker into a frothing rage if they saw some of the things (and numbers) I am currently seeing.
The only way to deal with these hazards is benefit caps, limits on housing subsidies and benefits for having larger than average families.
I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.
So I'll be the only PBer who won't be voting in the Labour leadership election ?
I won't be voting either, but I'd advise Labour to vote for a woman. Yvette Cooper I'd go for..
I think there's mileage in Labour pushing the Tory anti-woman agenda; it's worth a bash. Considering their current malaise, they have to try something!
Yes that will work. Yvette might become the first female Leader of the Opposition.. Err...
I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.
I wonder how long before one of those who thought your General Election vote swap was a wizard wheeze comes along to cry foul?
Labour are idiots. Do they REALLY need £3 that badly, that they will prostitute the identity of their next leader for it? I just find it bizarre that they didn't limit the vote to those who were members on election day.
I'm not voting in the Labour leadership election, nor am I in the slightest bit tempted to do so. It's not my business.
The result is irrelevant - the mood of the Labour Party is one of more extreme left wingism. Its one where they would be happy to be in alliance with the increasingly far left SNP. Whoever is Leader will go with that tide.
The Labour party has its head up its arse, and the SNP are only interested in using the situation to get independence for Scotland. Nobody knows what the NI MPs will do. Which leaves 8 Lib Dems and Caroline Lucas to counter them
I've depressed myself now. Think I'll go for a lie down.
Don't be depressed. You've forgotten to add Carswell to your 8 Lib Dems and Lucas...
I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.
I wonder how long before one of those who thought your General Election vote swap was a wizard wheeze comes along to cry foul?
Labour are idiots. Do they REALLY need £3 that badly, that they will prostitute the identity of their next leader for it? I just find it bizarre that they didn't limit the vote to those who were members on election day.
I know only three people who are members of the Labour Party - well, three people who will admit to it. One is a Green-ish nurse, another works for a charity and the other, my cousin, is a teacher. They're each voting for different people - the first for Corbyn, the second for Cooper, and the third for Burnham (well, unless he changes his mind - he was already cheering for Chuka and Tristram, so it wouldn't surprise me). I find this impossible to call - other than to guess that Burnham will be squeezed out after last night. If I were a member or supporter of a party for this dreadful election system, I would vote for one candidate as a protest.
Pretty bad how easy it is to vote - iirc the last Tory leadership election required pre-2005 election membership. Every Tory I knew, apart from my Express reading Grandmother, voted Cameron. It was cut and dried.
''Personally I was always unhappy about child benefits - which were often not spent for the benefit of the children - and did not agree with child tax credits.''
The Philpott case showed the glaring weaknesses of that system.
£54,000 a year in benefits. The threat of losing £12,000 of it when one woman left led to arson and deaths. All because there was no limit on how many kids the state funded and (then) no cap on benefits.
I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.
I wonder how long before one of those who thought your General Election vote swap was a wizard wheeze comes along to cry foul?
Labour are idiots. Do they REALLY need £3 that badly, that they will prostitute the identity of their next leader for it? I just find it bizarre that they didn't limit the vote to those who were members on election day.
It may be the same thinking that gave us open primaries for candidate selection.
This has been a very helpful (from my perspective) conversation on here today. Thanks to all Tory posters for their explanations on benefits etc. I don't agree with you, but I do get the point you are making. I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making. I worry that lines in the sand harm too many blameless people and that long term this damages the society of which we are all a part. This is no doubt based on my own experience. I have seen people make lifestyle choices around benefits - they were doing it back in the 80s and clearly do it now - but my sense is that the vast majority access welfare because they have no other choice, not because of decisions they have made but because of what life has thrown at them. I am pretty certain that had I found myself unemployed today, I would not have had the time and space to get myself back on my feet in the way that I was able to back in the 90s during the time of the Major government. And that would have been a complete waste for me, my family and, as it turns out, for a lot of other people too.
Thank you for this post. It does you credit. It also gets us to the point where we can debate the more detailed nuances of policy for the common good, rather than screaming at each other and pretending the other side holds an absolute position.
I completely understand the concerns about reducing incomes on working people who are not earning much, even if some of them are not working full time. But politics is the world of making difficult trade-offs, and the well-being of such workers has to be balanced against any poor incentives it provides them, in addition to not spend beyond our means as a nation. I think George Osborne is there, or thereabouts, although there is room for improvement. Personally, I think the council housing system is a mess, and there's ample room for efficiency savings or getting more revenue there, which could provide funds to lessen the impact on the working poor.
This has been a very helpful (from my perspective) conversation on here today. Thanks to all Tory posters for their explanations on benefits etc. I don't agree with you, but I do get the point you are making. I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making. I worry that lines in the sand harm too many blameless people and that long term this damages the society of which we are all a part. This is no doubt based on my own experience. I have seen people make lifestyle choices around benefits - they were doing it back in the 80s and clearly do it now - but my sense is that the vast majority access welfare because they have no other choice, not because of decisions they have made but because of what life has thrown at them. I am pretty certain that had I found myself unemployed today, I would not have had the time and space to get myself back on my feet in the way that I was able to back in the 90s during the time of the Major government. And that would have been a complete waste for me, my family and, as it turns out, for a lot of other people too.
Thank you for this post. It does you credit. It also gets us to the point where we can debate the more detailed nuances of policy for the common good, rather than screaming at each other and pretending the other side holds an absolute position.
I completely understand the concerns about reducing incomes on working people who are not earning much, even if some of them are not working full time. But politics is the world of making difficult trade-offs, and the well-being of such workers has to be balanced against any poor incentives it provides them, in addition to not spend beyond our means as a nation. I think George Osborne is there, or thereabouts, although there is room for improvement. Personally, I think the council housing system is a mess, and there's ample room for efficiency savings or getting more revenue there, which could provide funds to lessen the impact on the working poor.
Hear, hear!
Your arguments always rise above the Labour rabble, SO.
Incidentally, I find the most vocal supporters of welfare are often those who have never encountered it themselves. Those who have tend to be quiet but not unthinking supporters. The most vocal opponents of the status quo I've encountered, and I include myself in this, are those who see their own extended families and friends use the state to make lifestyle decisions whilst they work. I think, in a way, my own railing against it owes something to the melancholy mix of shame, sadness and distaste I feel about this.
This has been a very helpful (from my perspective) conversation on here today. Thanks to all Tory posters for their explanations on benefits etc. I don't agree with you, but I do get the point you are making. I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making. I worry that lines in the sand harm too many blameless people and that long term this damages the society of which we are all a part. This is no doubt based on my own experience. I have seen people make lifestyle choices around benefits - they were doing it back in the 80s and clearly do it now - but my sense is that the vast majority access welfare because they have no other choice, not because of decisions they have made but because of what life has thrown at them. I am pretty certain that had I found myself unemployed today, I would not have had the time and space to get myself back on my feet in the way that I was able to back in the 90s during the time of the Major government. And that would have been a complete waste for me, my family and, as it turns out, for a lot of other people too.
Thank you for this post. It does you credit. It also gets us to the point where we can debate the more detailed nuances of policy for the common good, rather than screaming at each other and pretending the other side holds an absolute position.
I completely understand the concerns about reducing incomes on working people who are not earning much, even if some of them are not working full time. But politics is the world of making difficult trade-offs, and the well-being of such workers has to be balanced against any poor incentives it provides them, in addition to not spend beyond our means as a nation. I think George Osborne is there, or thereabouts, although there is room for improvement. Personally, I think the council housing system is a mess, and there's ample room for efficiency savings or getting more revenue there, which could provide funds to lessen the impact on the working poor.
I'd like to second that. An excellent post from SO.
I'm not registering to vote in the Labour leadership election either. I don't want to run the slightest risk that someone somewhere might think that I'm a supporter of the Labour Party.
Nor do I wish to give them £3 or receive their emails from now until eternity or have any modicum of responsibility for the result. I also don't think it's the right thing to do.
Labour need to make their own decision and own this.
George Osborne is master of all he surveys at present and must be one of the most accomplished political chancellors of all time. He has basically won the argument on benefits and audaciously stolen the 'living wage' concept from labour. He is enacting all the controversial elements of changing UK at the beginning of the Parliament and if over the next two to three years his economic decisions are successful, labour will have no where to go but to the hard left. The EU referendum has become much harder to predict with the possibility of the left joining the right to exit opening a whole new ball game. However as David Cameron is likely to stand down after the referendum it is really possible that George Osborne will become our next Prime Minister by 2018
I'm not registering to vote in the Labour leadership election either. I don't want to run the slightest risk that someone somewhere might think that I'm a supporter of the Labour Party.
Nor do I wish to give them £3 or receive their emails from now until eternity or have any modicum of responsibility for the result. I also don't think it's the right thing to do.
Labour need to make their own decision and own this.
I'm with you, CR. Presumably as it is Labour, they need to own it and weaponise it, too?
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!
NCP was suggesting that private polling tended to favour the commissioner of the poll by c. 6%. But if we are assuming that Kendall commissioned the poll, then there ought to be no need to discount Jeremy's 15% lead at all.
I'd be surprised if any of the campaign teams had enough money to commission a genuine poll. They are pricey affairs, aren't they?
Apparently Jamie Carragher gave Burnham £10k! Don't know about the others but I suspect Cooper will have some decent connections on the basis she may well win and Kendall as she's a Blairite. I can't imagine Corbyn ever commissioning a poll!
£81,973.10 donations for the Cooper leadership campaign declared in the latest Register of Members' Interests including£50K from Ken & Barbara Follet.
I see that George Osborne agrees with me that the new intake of Labour MPs are more leftwing.
“They have a new intake of old Labour MPs dragging them back to the 1980s and we know the direction they’re heading in – left, left, left - away from the centre ground of British politics".
"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.
On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.
Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."
On topic btw - surely on the basis of that poster there'd have been a tie and the speaker has to cast his vote for the govt. LDs - still getting it wrong?
Unsurprisingly politics works best when things are thought through and discussed politely, rather than the overemphasis of tiny differences and the use of exaggerated language to make minor points.
George Osborne is master of all he surveys at present and must be one of the most accomplished political chancellors of all time. He has basically won the argument on benefits and audaciously stolen the 'living wage' concept from labour. He is enacting all the controversial elements of changing UK at the beginning of the Parliament and if over the next two to three years his economic decisions are successful, labour will have no where to go but to the hard left. The EU referendum has become much harder to predict with the possibility of the left joining the right to exit opening a whole new ball game. However as David Cameron is likely to stand down after the referendum it is really possible that George Osborne will become our next Prime Minister by 2018
Comments
Was two separate FPTP ballots, with a third if you include the final membership (Dave v David).
"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.
On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.
Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."
Being patronising doesn't really add to your argument.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8033acf4-2c8d-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz3gRmsjkid
He did go on to say that he would be voting for In.
I thought it was a very well-argued piece.
BBC Scotland News @BBCScotlandNews 5m5 minutes ago
Scottish Labour tables Holyrood motion calling for resignation of Police Scotland's chief constable Sir Stephen House http://bbc.in/1KiSXcf
Was two separate FPTP ballots, with a final membership FPTP round for Dave v. David.
I won't re-iterate my contention (from the glorious referendum days) that FPTP should really be called F (since there is no P) and that AV could then be usefully re-branded as FPTP (with P = 50%). Oh whoops, I just did.
I'll get my coat.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/21/england-squad-ashes-third-test-edgbaston
(peak Yorkshireman hubris alert)
I wish they'd pick Rashid. Give us more variation in attack, and from what Lyth and Bell are up to, we wouldn;t exactly be losing in the runs department.
Filled by Dave, Liam and David.
Then in round 2, there were two winners' berths (two "prizes").
Filled by Dave and David.
Remember, it's an example of an "Exhaustive Ballot".
In 2005
198 Tory MPs voted in each of rounds 1 and 2.
198,000 Tory members voted in round 3.
Think we might end up with another 55-45 result :-)
Bairstow Average 26.95
Ballance Average 47.76
Lets hope Bairstow can translate his current first class form to Tests though.
There is nothing wrong with having a series of 'knock out ballots' - like the tories to get to a final two who also rank some level of confidence in elected MPs. Each ballot is different and the choices are clear.
But labour turn their ballot into a guessing game where you have no idea how effective any second preferences are going to be and who that second preference might in reality be campaingning against since everyone else is in the same boat.
The logic of the parliamentary party at least having some control is kicked into touch when the ty nominate someone they do not actually want to win!
If this is the way they run their own party then keep them away from running the country
Consensus politics means fewer long-term decisions, not more; but the idea is a sham anyway. Cameron leads a consensus as he did in 2010, it's just the players in terms of MPs are in his party. The voters didn't change particularly.
For example,
- A couple have two children, but would like four.
- They know that they can't really afford four. This would push them into "poverty".
- However, they also know the state will subsidise them with tax credits.
- They go ahead and have the two extra children, and the state has to pick up the tab.
Why should their lifestyle choice be subsidised by the state?
If it's an absolute featherbed, it's Jimmy that'll suffer most comparitively.
This is 100% correct Mr Observer. I think all politicians, but especially labour ones, need to do plenty of hard thinking on Welfare, and some aggressive re-defining.
In cutting benefits the tories are, as RN admitted, affecting some deserving low paid workers for a short time.
In defending the status quo, however, labour are also defending some pretty glaring anomalies and practices.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02xp4hn
It would appear that many agree that children, whilst a personal joy, are the economic responsibility of the parents and not the state. Personally I was always unhappy about child benefits - which were often not spent for the benefit of the children - and did not agree with child tax credits.
Other European countries only give any form of child support for the first three years of its life and seem to manage perfectly well.
The Philpott case showed the glaring weaknesses of that system.
In AV you can end up having voted for nobody. That is less likely (although technically feasible) in an exhaustive ballot
But you could say that the smoker or the morbidly obese or the dangerous sports guy is encouraged by the existence of the NHS, and yet we provide that.
The validity of the comparison depends on how much people choose to have chldren or do those things. And whilst it may not be clear cut I think it's clear there are other things we have to take into account.
Because the exhaustive ballot involves separate rounds of voting, voters can use the results of one round to inform how they will vote in the next, whereas this is not possible under IRV [ie. AV]. Furthermore, because it is necessary to vote only once, instant-runoff voting has been used for large-scale elections in many places."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustive_ballot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
I am guessing that the application form asks if you are member of another political party BTW.
These matters are so complex, that you really need to be able to present a longer and more considered argument than the forum format allows. Each post would be a mini-essay!
I think there's mileage in Labour pushing the Tory anti-woman agenda; it's worth a bash. Considering their current malaise, they have to try something!
Very very powerful public speaker. Manages to speak human. And knows what he stands for.
Lamb almost as good, but not as charismatic.
Labour have lost their way IMHO. Instead of knowing what they stand for and showing some leadership by setting out to convince the public, they are trying to follow the public, and as the public are a fickle lot capable of holding umpteen contradictory opinionssimultaneously between them, that means the Labour party bob about helplessly.
To those of you who are about to post something rude about Lib Dems and principles, the point about being in a coalition is that neither side can get exactly what it wants. Why not attack the Tories for giving in to us and going against their principles on tax thresholds, pension triple lock, apprenticeships, snoopers charter, Beecroft etc etc.
Since the Tories started governing by themselves they have scrapped the care cap that arose out of Dilnot while pretending they were listening to councils, scuppered social housing while pretending they are helping it, cut the incomes of the lowest earners in work while pretending they are introducing decent pay, cancelled a load of investment outside London, and set out creating more privileges for the better off, such as on inheritance tax, while restricting even further the rights of people to strike. And on top of all that, they are gaming the political system to try to ensure they are in government for perpetuity. And some of it they are doing purely to set political traps.
Some of you are celebrating all that. The Labour party has its head up its arse, and the SNP are only interested in using the situation to get independence for Scotland. Nobody knows what the NI MPs will do. Which leaves 8 Lib Dems and Caroline Lucas to counter them
I've depressed myself now. Think I'll go for a lie down.
Confidentiality limits what I can say but there remain things that would set Mr and Mrs Ordinary Worker into a frothing rage if they saw some of the things (and numbers) I am currently seeing.
The only way to deal with these hazards is benefit caps, limits on housing subsidies and benefits for having larger than average families.
Labour are idiots. Do they REALLY need £3 that badly, that they will prostitute the identity of their next leader for it? I just find it bizarre that they didn't limit the vote to those who were members on election day.
Pretty bad how easy it is to vote - iirc the last Tory leadership election required pre-2005 election membership. Every Tory I knew, apart from my
Express reading Grandmother, voted Cameron. It was cut and dried.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303881/Mick-Philpott-got-100k-benefits-wages-wife-Mairead-lover-Lisa-Willis-paid-HIS-account.html
I completely understand the concerns about reducing incomes on working people who are not earning much, even if some of them are not working full time. But politics is the world of making difficult trade-offs, and the well-being of such workers has to be balanced against any poor incentives it provides them, in addition to not spend beyond our means as a nation. I think George Osborne is there, or thereabouts, although there is room for improvement. Personally, I think the council housing system is a mess, and there's ample room for efficiency savings or getting more revenue there, which could provide funds to lessen the impact on the working poor.
I read some of the kids were packed in like sardines in the clothes they wore during the day.
Don;t tell me all the money was going on them.
Interesting line from the Lib Dems. Disregards that it's very unusual for 100% of MPs in any party to vote for or against something.
Your arguments always rise above the Labour rabble, SO.
Incidentally, I find the most vocal supporters of welfare are often those who have never encountered it themselves. Those who have tend to be quiet but not unthinking supporters. The most vocal opponents of the status quo I've encountered, and I include myself in this, are those who see their own extended families and friends use the state to make lifestyle decisions whilst they work. I think, in a way, my own railing against it owes something to the melancholy mix of shame, sadness and distaste I feel about this.
Nor do I wish to give them £3 or receive their emails from now until eternity or have any modicum of responsibility for the result. I also don't think it's the right thing to do.
Labour need to make their own decision and own this.
:-)
At last somebody in the Grauniad gets it! Are we moving beyond the angry stage of grief?
“They have a new intake of old Labour MPs dragging them back to the 1980s and we know the direction they’re heading in – left, left, left - away from the centre ground of British politics".
I was very surprised at the answer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvette-cooper/welfare-bill-labour-party_b_7841884.html?1437497109&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
She evidently sees the problem but it's all rather light on solutions.
I've "liked" Yvette Cooper's Facebook page and "Liz Kendall for Conservative leader" on a purely business basis.
Unsurprisingly politics works best when things are thought through and discussed politely, rather than the overemphasis of tiny differences and the use of exaggerated language to make minor points.