Typical Tory Scum SNP, helping the poor rich along:
....since 2011 the proportion of students from state schools entering Scotland’s elite universities has fallen. And while the proportion of university students from non-professional backgrounds has risen by just 0.2 percentage points, to 26.8%, in England it has gone up from 30.9% to 33.1%.
'' How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us)''
Are you saying in essence that these changes are all about the end of a subsidy for a lifestyle choice?
Re a free pass - no one gets one forever, even if the opposition is so poor it is hard to benefit. It may be more setting a landmine for the future when the opposition is more credible. Not saying it will, but must be a risk.
We have to proceed with these tax credit changes because they are a very important cultural signal. We want this to be one of the most successful countries in the world in 20, 30, 40 years’ time. There’s a pretty difficult question that we have to answer which is essentially: are we going to be a country that is prepared to work hard in the way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, in the way that Americans are prepared to work hard? And that is about creating culture where work is at the heart of our success.
Remarkable comments by Hunt - we need to cut incomes so we learn to work harder (so higher tax rates make wealthy people redouble their efforts, right? Take that, Laffer!), don't worry about that Tory MP sympathising with doctors, he's just an angry ex-Minister, and hospitals should be more like Japanese car factories...
So how does making hard working poor people poorer help in that task?
It doesn't. But removing the subsidy from low skill low wage labour, while putting up the minimum wage, will encourage companies to invest in productivity improvements, which will help wages increase in the longer term. It also reduces the deficit, meaning less threat of future tax rises for companies, encouraging more to invest here.
That is not what has happened in the US or in large parts of Asia. Chinese productivity is even worse than ours.
Yet Chinese productivity is improving rapidly, and it's the direction of travel that needs to be considered.
The US has the same subsidy for low income labour as we do, and even more open borders for low skill immigration.
I suddenly feel very old and very Yorkshire-ish (even though I'm not the latter).
I grew up in a council estate in the fifties, eight of us in a three bed house with one wage-earner, a labourer. I wore hand-me-downs until I was in my teens. Nearly all around us worked even though some were illiterate.
We never knew central heating or carpets or boilers or holidays (one day trip to Skeg) but we never considered ourselves poor because everyone was the same and we had an inside toilet. What you'd call poverty rather than relative poverty.
But we had disorganised, dysfunctional families around us and money doesn't always help there. Sometimes it does, but it's an issue no one likes to face.
To some Tories, welfare is often squandered. To the Corbynites, money is a panacea and everyone who disagrees is a cnut. Both simplistic and both childish.
Typical Tory Scum SNP, helping the poor rich along:
....since 2011 the proportion of students from state schools entering Scotland’s elite universities has fallen. And while the proportion of university students from non-professional backgrounds has risen by just 0.2 percentage points, to 26.8%, in England it has gone up from 30.9% to 33.1%.
My younger daughter started Law at Edinburgh a few weeks ago. She said it was very much like being at Dundee High, totally dominated by those from a private school background. Some of the arts courses are not like that but the high tariff ones are. It was not like that in Dundee 35 years ago. The private school kids were a very small minority.
How social mobility is helped by allowing these children of professionals enter their well paid careers without debt is simply beyond me. The price is paid in the number of places the Scottish Government can fund. And guess who loses out there?
50 years ago a family of 4 could survive happily on one person's income.
Well yes and no. 50 years ago, many families did not have cars, televisions, inside toilets or fridges, let alone the high tech mobile handsets that are now a personal necessity.
But they survived.
OK - even 30 years ago. But - old-fashioned as this may make me - I don't think that not being able to afford the latest high tech mobile or other gadget is a mark of poverty, frankly.
People need to be able to have adequate housing and feed themselves and clothe themselves etc. The inadequacy of housing for those on low wages is far more important than someone not being able to upgrade their mobile.
I agree. One of the problems of modern society is the inability to distinguish between 'must haves' and 'nice to haves' when budgeting
Merely pointing out that the Tories never mentioned that the cuts would involve working people losing tax credits.
They mentioned over and over again that they would reduce welfare payments, whilst protecting the most vulnerable (the long-term unemployed, the disabled and the elderly).
I suddenly feel very old and very Yorkshire-ish (even though I'm not the latter).
I grew up in a council estate in the fifties, eight of us in a three bed house with one wage-earner, a labourer. I wore hand-me-downs until I was in my teens. Nearly all around us worked even though some were illiterate.
We never knew central heating or carpets or boilers or holidays (one day trip to Skeg) but we never considered ourselves poor because everyone was the same and we had an inside toilet. What you'd call poverty rather than relative poverty.
But we had disorganised, dysfunctional families around us and money doesn't always help there. Sometimes it does, but it's an issue no one likes to face.
To some Tories, welfare is often squandered. To the Corbynites, money is a panacea and everyone who disagrees is a cnut. Both simplistic and both childish.
Now I've got to find three other Yorkshiremen.
Will one Lancastrian help? We are worth several Yorkshireman... 'Oooh er.... mummy!!!'
'' How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us)''
Are you saying in essence that these changes are all about the end of a subsidy for a lifestyle choice?
No, not at all. Many who work part time do so because that is all they can get, not because they don't want to work more. It has created a pool of cheap, casualised labour which is often exploited by employers and subsidised by the State. Many of the worst excesses of ZHCs are found in this area.
I am saying that is where the problem is and by lying about it and pretending that the problem is with full time employees the real issue is being overlooked. We need to hope that the flood of full time jobs we have seen over the last 4-5 years continues. If it does not there will be real hardship.
So why not spell out the policy before the election?
They did
Anyone remember £12Bn in welfare savings?
Anyone remember the Tories spelling out how it would work?
We produced far more detailed plans than Labour did, so it seems odd to attack the Conservatives here.
Merely pointing out that the Tories never mentioned that the cuts would involve working people losing tax credits.
No, they didn't. But they did make clear there would be substantial cuts to government transfer payments. and people getting cheques from the government can put two and two together.
I accept that there will be people hit by that. But we need to stop running up debt in this country, and we are already too highly taxed. That means spending needs to be cut and that is always going to be hard. The question is how do you cut in a way that sets up a good system of incentives for individuals and companies so that the immediate effect of the cut is cushioned by improving the long term growth of wages.
That is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. They did not think about long term effects while we do.
On topic, Osborne has to deliver a speech with the handicap of being a painfully shy and private person. It must take quite a resolve for him to go out in front of Conference. You might wonder why he went into politics then...
I personally believe his role is as a steadying hand to the next incoming leader.
50 years ago a family of 4 could survive happily on one person's income.
Well yes and no. 50 years ago, many families did not have cars, televisions, inside toilets or fridges, let alone the high tech mobile handsets that are now a personal necessity.
But they survived.
OK - even 30 years ago. But - old-fashioned as this may make me - I don't think that not being able to afford the latest high tech mobile or other gadget is a mark of poverty, frankly.
People need to be able to have adequate housing and feed themselves and clothe themselves etc. The inadequacy of housing for those on low wages is far more important than someone not being able to upgrade their mobile.
Things are never that simple. As a thought exercise, how quickly can you cancel all your contracts for phones, internet and satellite or cable television?
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
I did the maths on the previous thread. Those on NMW and working 35 hours a week got an extra £7 a week from 1st October. Those who earn enough to pay tax get an extra £10 a month this financial year compared to last year because of the £600 increase in their personal allowance. Those not on the NMW are currently getting about 2-3% increase a year in their wages in real terms.
For those on NMW and 35 hours the increase from the government is worth about £40 a month. How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us).
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
I did the maths on the previous thread. Those on NMW and working 35 hours a week got an extra £7 a week from 1st October. Those who earn enough to pay tax get an extra £10 a month this financial year compared to last year because of the £600 increase in their personal allowance. Those not on the NMW are currently getting about 2-3% increase a year in their wages in real terms.
For those on NMW and 35 hours the increase from the government is worth about £40 a month. How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us).
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
15 or 16 hours per week could easily be 2 x 7.5/8 hour shifts. Not as simple as asking for an extra half day every week...
So why is he talking about a culture change then? Suggests he thinks something isn't right with the status quo and we need a different policy.
Indeed so. We need to remove the perverse incentives which are preventing people from being able to realise their full potential and making them dependent on hand-outs administered by a complex bureaucracy.
Remember the 2010 starting point was people earning a mere £10K were paying something like £700 in income tax, and nine out of ten families were getting welfare handouts. That was clearly bonkers, and we are gradually getting back towards some semblance of sanity.
This business rate change, what are the risks? My local Tory council has always been asking for this type of change so I've never seen it portrayed as being a bad thing, but there is always another side, if not always a convincing one, so I'm curious.
I think the issue was that, in the 80s, certain loony left councils were soaking businesses to the detriment of their local economies, safe in the knowledge that central government would have to pick up the bill (unemployment) or face the political consequences.
That's why it was centralised.
Presumably Osborne thinks the loony left has gone away...
On the contrary, Osborne KNOWS that certain councils will abuse the new powers. And many of the businesses will move.. To better run councils.
Result - Loony left councils are shown to impoverish their constituents..
This is all about softening up the well run councils to Conservative thinking and isolating the nutters..
Surely Osborne will also come with some sort of open data around this to minimise the impact of the business rate change. A simple comparison of business rates and their movement and joblessness and that it's movement should suffice.
PoliticsHome @politicshome Sajid Javid on #wato: Business rates plan only applies to elected mayors - http://polho.me/1M6G1ZI (£) Hmmm devil in the detail.
So Shire counties are excluded then? What would be the point of that?
Why is this government so obsessed with mayors?
Does it think there's less tribalism in voting for mayors and that that favours Tory candidates in cities, maybe not enough to win sometimes but mostly to do better than they otherwise might - Boris in London, Livingston as an independent? ZG will be the proof of that, or not.
So why is he talking about a culture change then? Suggests he thinks something isn't right with the status quo and we need a different policy.
Indeed so. We need to remove the perverse incentives which are preventing people from being able to realise their full potential and making them dependent on hand-outs administered by a complex bureaucracy.
Remember the 2010 starting point was people earning a mere £10K were paying something like £700 in income tax, and nine out of ten families were getting welfare handouts. That was clearly bonkers, and we are gradually getting back towards some semblance of sanity.
Sorry but the clear inference from his remarks is that the current system makes people lazy and that changes are needed to make them work harder? Do you believe we're currently a lazy country?
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
I did the maths on the previous thread. Those on NMW and working 35 hours a week got an extra £7 a week from 1st October. Those who earn enough to pay tax get an extra £10 a month this financial year compared to last year because of the £600 increase in their personal allowance. Those not on the NMW are currently getting about 2-3% increase a year in their wages in real terms.
For those on NMW and 35 hours the increase from the government is worth about £40 a month. How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us).
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
If it was as simple as asking them to work another 5 hours to make up the shortfall I am sure everyone would agree. I don't believe it is that simple. We have created an underclass of people in work but treated, well, very badly, constantly under threat of losing the key number of hours which trigger their entitlement to very generous payments and exploited as a result by employers who have no interest in training or promoting them.
In an ideal world we would squeeze this group out of existence by making it impossible for them to be in that position because it is simply not viable. Employers then have to offer full time work to get the staff. In the long run I believe we will all be better off from this but it is stupid to pretend that there will not be real hardship in the interim.
This is difficult social engineering but it is happening without meaningful debate because Labour would rather talk about those in full time work with 6 kids or whatever who may lose out, or may not. Labour is once again simply not doing its job.
So why is he talking about a culture change then? Suggests he thinks something isn't right with the status quo and we need a different policy.
A culture is the way things are done, including both the habits of people and the underlying structure of the organization which molds behaviours. A set up which, through its reward system, discourages people from working longer hours helps create a culture of lower productivity. Observing that to be a fact states nothing about the character of the players trapped in that system or their personal ambitions - it merely observes what the environment encourages or discourages them as rational actors to do on average.
If you want a culture of higher pay, you need higher productivity and hence you have to remove obstacles to achieving that.
So yes, something is wrong with the status quo and policy changes are required.
Sorry but the clear inference from his remarks is that the current system makes people lazy and that changes are needed to make them work harder? Do you believe we're currently a lazy country?
That is not the clear inference at all. Someone who doesn't work extra hours because if they do they get penalised by the tax and welfare system is not lazy, but is acting rationally in the circumstances.
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
I did the maths on the previous thread. Those on NMW and working 35 hours a week got an extra £7 a week from 1st October. Those who earn enough to pay tax get an extra £10 a month this financial year compared to last year because of the £600 increase in their personal allowance. Those not on the NMW are currently getting about 2-3% increase a year in their wages in real terms.
For those on NMW and 35 hours the increase from the government is worth about £40 a month. How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us).
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
A high proportion of those working ~15 hours per week are likely to be mothers with school age children, surely?
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
I did the maths on the previous thread. Those on NMW and working 35 hours a week got an extra £7 a week from 1st October. Those who earn enough to pay tax get an extra £10 a month this financial year compared to last year because of the £600 increase in their personal allowance. Those not on the NMW are currently getting about 2-3% increase a year in their wages in real terms.
For those on NMW and 35 hours the increase from the government is worth about £40 a month. How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us).
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
A high proportion of those working ~15 hours per week are likely to be mothers with school age children, surely?
Teaching assistants, dinner ladies, cleaners etc.
Why is Osborne choosing to target them?
Given school lasts 37+ hrs a week why are these parents only working 15 ?
The bottom line is that Osborne is a strategist and a "behind the scenes" man... A character actor rather than a leading man.
Because of the mess Labour has got itself in to, I think even Osborne will be able to win the Tories another term in office in 2020... But I've no doubt George Osborne will be a very unpopular Prime Minister, vastly more unpopular than Cameron and Tories should be in no doubt that as soon as Labour get's their act together George Osborne will lead the Conservatives back to the wilderness.
@MarkKleinmanSky: Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn snubs invitation from Institute of Directors to address its annual conference tomorrow. http://t.co/WYgKt6d0Ln
Is he becoming aware of his limitations? If he wasn't before, it won't be too long before he's made aware, unless he is extraordinarily self delusional.
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
I did the maths on the previous thread. Those on NMW and working 35 hours a week got an extra £7 a week from 1st October. Those who earn enough to pay tax get an extra £10 a month this financial year compared to last year because of the £600 increase in their personal allowance. Those not on the NMW are currently getting about 2-3% increase a year in their wages in real terms.
For those on NMW and 35 hours the increase from the government is worth about £40 a month. How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us).
A high proportion of those working ~15 hours per week are likely to be mothers with school age children, surely?
Teaching assistants, dinner ladies, cleaners etc.
Why is Osborne choosing to target them?
The reason for so many people working 16 hours a week is because under the old benefits regime (before Universal Credit) there was an artificial limit imposed such that working any more hours resulted in huge benefits cuts, so that for example someone working 18 or 20 hours a week could end up with LESS money in wages and benefits compared to someone working the same job for only 16 hours. This arbitary limit has been removed, meaning that those who want to work 20 hours a week are now able to do so, and be better off as a result.
The latest available figures show the NHS acute sector continuing to forecast a deficit in excess of £2bn for this financial year. Trusts’ year to date financial performance is even worse than planned, HSJ analysis has found.
What's 2 billion converted into number of weeks/ days and hours to save the NHS which I understand is the normal accepted Labour Party measure for distracting attention from more important things?
Remarkable comments by Hunt - we need to cut incomes so we learn to work harder (so higher tax rates make wealthy people redouble their efforts, right? Take that, Laffer!), don't worry about that Tory MP sympathising with doctors, he's just an angry ex-Minister, and hospitals should be more like Japanese car factories...
Hang on, Nick, are you really claiming that hospitals shouldn't try to be more efficient, in the way that car factories do? As an example, there was a radio interview with a surgeon which I heard a few months ago (sorry, I don't have a link). He had looked at a German hospital which had achieved a big increase in the throughput of surgical operations. It turned out that they had achieved this by a fairly simple change in procedures - instead of the surgical team doing the clean-up.disinfecting between each operation, they had a separate cleaning team who were completely focussed on fast and effective cleaning, and were all ready to go in and do the cleaning as soon as the previous operation was over.
It is that kind of thing which the NHS needs to do much more than it currently does. If it could achieve one tenth of the productivity gains which car factories have managed the effect would be dramatic.
Gordon Brown and labour promised no more money for the NHS and £20bn efficiency savings in the 2010 election manifesto. They specifically said that the NHS now had enough money and could be more efficient and use private providers. The likes of Palmer and all the other dissembling Labourites should read their own manifesto. Fat chance. They do nothing but lie about the NHS and their plans for it.
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
I did the maths on the previous thread. Those on NMW and working 35 hours a week got an extra £7 a week from 1st October. Those who earn enough to pay tax get an extra £10 a month this financial year compared to last year because of the £600 increase in their personal allowance. Those not on the NMW are currently getting about 2-3% increase a year in their wages in real terms.
For those on NMW and 35 hours the increase from the government is worth about £40 a month. How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us).
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
A high proportion of those working ~15 hours per week are likely to be mothers with school age children, surely?
Teaching assistants, dinner ladies, cleaners etc.
Why is Osborne choosing to target them?
Given school lasts 37+ hrs a week why are these parents only working 15 ?
Why do those working ~15hrs deserve a massive kick in the teeth?
The latest available figures show the NHS acute sector continuing to forecast a deficit in excess of £2bn for this financial year. Trusts’ year to date financial performance is even worse than planned, HSJ analysis has found.
What's 2 billion converted into number of weeks/ days and hours to save the NHS which I understand is the normal accepted Labour Party measure for distracting attention from more important things?
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
I
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
A high proportion of those working ~15 hours per week are likely to be mothers with school age children, surely?
Teaching assistants, dinner ladies, cleaners etc.
Why is Osborne choosing to target them?
Given school lasts 37+ hrs a week why are these parents only working 15 ?
Why do those working ~15hrs deserve a massive kick in the teeth?
They are not getting a kick in the teeth, they are being subsidised by the rest of us, only rather less so. This will cause them to review their circumstances. Either they will decide that work is not worth it or they will work more. That means the employers using them have to find ways of having those hours filled either by paying more or by employing for longer.
I am not an Osborne supporter but every case quoted includes a part time worker often 15 - 16 hours per week. So I agree that if they work about 5 hours more even on NMW these "£1,000" a year or £100 a month drops in income dissappear. But it does look like osborne's comms people are unable to communicate this. The briefings for Osborne's chosen representatives are inadequate. Asking someone to work 20 rather than 15 hours a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
I did the maths on the previous thread. Those on NMW and working 35 hours a week got an extra £7 a week from 1st October. Those who earn enough to pay tax get an extra £10 a month this financial year compared to last year because of the £600 increase in their personal allowance. Those not on the NMW are currently getting about 2-3% increase a year in their wages in real terms.
For those on NMW and 35 hours the increase from the government is worth about £40 a month. How many will lose more than that from their WTC? I would suggest again it is really only those who were on part time work and full time wages, courtesy of the State (ie us).
urs a week is reasonable - particularly in an age where we are moving into full employment.
A high proportion of those working ~15 hours per week are likely to be mothers with school age children, surely?
Teaching assistants, dinner ladies, cleaners etc.
Why is Osborne choosing to target them?
Given school lasts 37+ hrs a week why are these parents only working 15 ?
Why do those working ~15hrs deserve a massive kick in the teeth?
Why do they deserve to get their part time lifestyle funded by hard working taxpayers ?
The bottom line is that Osborne is a strategist and a "behind the scenes" man... A character actor rather than a leading man.
Because of the mess Labour has got itself in to, I think even Osborne will be able to win the Tories another term in office in 2020... But I've no doubt George Osborne will be a very unpopular Prime Minister, vastly more unpopular than Cameron and Tories should be in no doubt that as soon as Labour get's their act together George Osborne will lead the Conservatives back to the wilderness.
Remind me how many northern labour politicians followed Osborne to China. The Labour party as you know it and have known it has ceased to exist.
@MarkKleinmanSky: Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn snubs invitation from Institute of Directors to address its annual conference tomorrow. http://t.co/WYgKt6d0Ln
Is he becoming aware of his limitations? If he wasn't before, it won't be too long before he's made aware, unless he is extraordinarily self delusional.
Sorry but the clear inference from his remarks is that the current system makes people lazy and that changes are needed to make them work harder? Do you believe we're currently a lazy country?
That is not the clear inference at all. Someone who doesn't work extra hours because if they do they get penalised by the tax and welfare system is not lazy, but is acting rationally in the circumstances.
Snap. See my comment one before yours in this thread.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
No, they're about to cut the benefits of low-income people. Their wages will be going up.
I'm not sure your average low-income person who will have less money in their pocket will appreciate the distinction.
This seems the real danger as I see it. With this particular change, there may well be all sorts of mitigations, and the system may not be working, and I even think in the abstract people would support it, but I think the risk is there a lot of people will see it in simple terms as you have characterised it, and it will hit the Tories politically as a result.
What proportion of those affected do you suppose are tribal voters? This is a huge issue that needs to be put to bed for the benefit of the country as a whole and the Tories have given themselves time to have their best shot at it without it being an issue in 2020.
The point about tax credits is surely that many people will no longer have to go cap in hand to the government to get their own money back, a demeaning and complicated task.
and dealing with HMRC which is usually a nightmare. But this could be achieved with a gradual decline rather than a sudden cut, if the wages are really going up to match.
Short, sharp shock with time for memories to fade is much better then death by a thousand cuts.
The bottom line is that Osborne is a strategist and a "behind the scenes" man... A character actor rather than a leading man.
Because of the mess Labour has got itself in to, I think even Osborne will be able to win the Tories another term in office in 2020... But I've no doubt George Osborne will be a very unpopular Prime Minister, vastly more unpopular than Cameron and Tories should be in no doubt that as soon as Labour get's their act together George Osborne will lead the Conservatives back to the wilderness.
I think wilderness is strong but I'd be much happier for Osborne to find someone else to back and do the same thing without doing, well, a less-charismatic Eden.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
No, they're about to cut the benefits of low-income people. Their wages will be going up.
I'm not sure your average low-income person who will have less money in their pocket will appreciate the distinction.
That is a fair point. Getting from a low wage economy where the working poor need benefits to survive to a high wage economy where you can look after yourself with the money you earn and welfare is for those who really need it and not used to subsidise stingy employers is difficult. I don't know whether the government has found the right route. But the destination is the right one.
Labour give the impression that we shouldn't even try and that the only mark of a successful economy is how much is spent on welfare, no matter how pointless or wasteful it may be. That's not a winning argument.
50 years ago a family of 4 could survive happily on one person's income. Now people have to work every hour there is and still can't afford the basics. Getting to a situation where a person can live on their income and not be reliant on handouts seems to me to be worthwhile. Why is Labour putting themselves on the wrong side of this argument?
I agree substantially. There has to be pain to reduce the burgeoning cost of welfare. No amount of spinning will make that go away. If you've got to do it (and IMHO we do), do it now, do it hard and hope to god the economy holds up.
Mr. Palmer, you're aware that taxes and benefits/welfare are different things, right?
The government's decreased taxes for those on low incomes, high incomes and businesses.
But they are about to cut the wages of most low-income people.
No, they're about to cut the benefits of low-income people. Their wages will be going up.
I'm not sure your average low-income person who will have less money in their pocket will appreciate the distinction.
This seems the real danger as I see it. With this particular change, there may well be all sorts of mitigations, and the system may not be working, and I even think in the abstract people would support it, but I think the risk is there a lot of people will see it in simple terms as you have characterised it, and it will hit the Tories politically as a result.
What proportion of those affected do you suppose are tribal voters? This is a huge issue that needs to be put to bed for the benefit of the country as a whole and the Tories have given themselves time to have their best shot at it without it being an issue in 2020.
I suspect most of those affected are fairly tribal voters and hence the marginal change in vote from this one policy is likely to have very little electoral impact. DEs (which I presume make up the bulk of those affected by the proposed reforms) make up 26% of the population, 57% of them vote, and of those only 27% of them vote Blue.
If the Blues lost every single one of them, without picking up any voters elsewhere, that would be a 4% drop in the polls for them - which would be damaging, but is very unlikely to happen.
A lot of posters on here seem to have forgotten there was an election where significantly more people voted tory than labour. Most of the arguments have been won and - sorry - lost.
TUC bloke yesterday was protesting outside the tory conference had also forgotten this, saying (I paraphrase) he wanted to send a message that the policies put forward by the tories weren't popular.
50 years ago a family of 4 could survive happily on one person's income.
Well yes and no. 50 years ago, many families did not have cars, televisions, inside toilets or fridges, let alone the high tech mobile handsets that are now a personal necessity.
But they survived.
And a sense of entitlement truly was the preserve of the rich. Now, everyone feels entitled. He's got it, why shouldn't I have it?
Pacific rim trade deal signed after 5 years negotiations. Canada says they do not expect job losses but that 'industry will have to adapt'. Hmm.
Is that not always the case with free trade? Some jobs are lost to overseas markets, but a country's more efficient industries gain greater access to markets, creating and protecting other - higher paying - jobs. Both the losers and the winners will have to adapt - the former to either find a way to be competitive or change business, the latter to increase production.
Pacific rim trade deal signed after 5 years negotiations. Canada says they do not expect job losses but that 'industry will have to adapt'. Hmm.
Clinton signed NAFTA and Obama has signed TPP. If only our left-wing was so positive about free trade.
This is big coup for Obama. It will really help the US economy and it has confirmed the US as pre-eminent in setting the Asian trade framework over the Chinese.
They are not getting a kick in the teeth, they are being subsidised by the rest of us, only rather less so. This will cause them to review their circumstances. Either they will decide that work is not worth it or they will work more. That means the employers using them have to find ways of having those hours filled either by paying more or by employing for longer.
But it's an illusion to think that most people in this situation have a choice. Someone working part-time in a shop can't simply decide to put in an extra 5 hours. I know a number of former constituents who have been trying for a long time to increase their hours, but their employers don't feel the additional work will produce enough additional revenue. This doesn't make either the employers wicked or the staff lazy - it's just a fact of business life. Nor are alternative jobs with more opportunities always readily available.
For people in this situation, it is indeed a kick in the teeth.
Protesters called the Mayor of London "Tory scum" as he entered the conference. But later, Mr Johnson told supporters he had misheard them: "What a wonderful welcome we received earlier from some of the assorted crusties with nose rings. They shouted as I came in "Tories - come! Tories, come!"
"If they meant anything rude by that I think it is a comment on the fatuity and the paucity of Labour politics today. I think most people looking at Jeremy Corbyn turning up to join that mob will recognise that it is the Conservative party that speaks for working people."
@MarkKleinmanSky: Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn snubs invitation from Institute of Directors to address its annual conference tomorrow. http://t.co/WYgKt6d0Ln
Is he becoming aware of his limitations? If he wasn't before, it won't be too long before he's made aware, unless he is extraordinarily self delusional.
Was Corbyn afraid they might spit at him?
More likely he was scared that he wouldn't be able to stop himself spitting at them; new kinda politics.
Pacific rim trade deal signed after 5 years negotiations. Canada says they do not expect job losses but that 'industry will have to adapt'. Hmm.
Clinton signed NAFTA and Obama has signed TPP. If only our left-wing was so positive about free trade.
This is big coup for Obama. It will really help the US economy and it has confirmed the US as pre-eminent in setting the Asian trade framework over the Chinese.
But Obama only got it through Congress with GOP support - the Dems mainly voted against it (13-32-1 in the Senate). The overall vote was 60-37-3, so it took 47 GOP votes to beat the filibuster.
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Let's see how many fingers Putin sticks in Obama's eye now.
Protesters called the Mayor of London "Tory scum" as he entered the conference. But later, Mr Johnson told supporters he had misheard them: "What a wonderful welcome we received earlier from some of the assorted crusties with nose rings. They shouted as I came in "Tories - come! Tories, come!"
"If they meant anything rude by that I think it is a comment on the fatuity and the paucity of Labour politics today. I think most people looking at Jeremy Corbyn turning up to join that mob will recognise that it is the Conservative party that speaks for working people."
I think everyone bar the Corbynites and particularly the crusties with nose rings will have enjoyed your post and credit to Boris.
Pacific rim trade deal signed after 5 years negotiations. Canada says they do not expect job losses but that 'industry will have to adapt'. Hmm.
Is that not always the case with free trade? Some jobs are lost to overseas markets, but a country's more efficient industries gain greater access to markets, creating and protecting other - higher paying - jobs. Both the losers and the winners will have to adapt - the former to either find a way to be competitive or change business, the latter to increase production.
Free trade sucks if you are an uncompetitive, protected industry.
It is a classic example of the gains being spread widely (all consumers), but the losses being concentrated (previously protected firms).
One of the reasons why lobbying is so effective is because it can point to specific impacts on a relatively small number of people, while the winners are diffuse, and often don't realise they are winners.
It takes politicians of courage to look beyond the easy answer and the vested interests.
50 years ago a family of 4 could survive happily on one person's income.
Well yes and no. 50 years ago, many families did not have cars, televisions, inside toilets or fridges, let alone the high tech mobile handsets that are now a personal necessity.
But they survived.
OK - even 30 years ago. But - old-fashioned as this may make me - I don't think that not being able to afford the latest high tech mobile or other gadget is a mark of poverty, frankly.
People need to be able to have adequate housing and feed themselves and clothe themselves etc. The inadequacy of housing for those on low wages is far more important than someone not being able to upgrade their mobile.
Things are never that simple. As a thought exercise, how quickly can you cancel all your contracts for phones, internet and satellite or cable television?
Very quickly indeed. I don't have satellite or cable television nor a mobile phone. My work one is perfectly adequate and I've never felt the need to tell people that I'm on a train. I grew up without a television and could survive not having one. The internet I would miss it is true. But when I am in Cumbria the internet connection there is - currently - is very poor indeed and I manage to have rather a good life without it.
Bad housing on the other hand marks you for life. I grew up in a flat, rented, which was so neglected by the landlord who took over that it was declared unfit for human habitation under the 1952 Housing Act by the local authority who ordered the landlord to carry out various essential remedial works to ensure it was not riddled with damp and dry rot. This may explain why I have suffered from lung problems all my life. We did not think of ourselves as poor - even relatively so - because my parents always gave me good food, wonderful experiences, a love of reading and education and the belief that you judge people by how they behave, how interesting they are, how funny and kind and not by what they have or how much they boast about their money and possessions (which was seen as ineffably vulgar and not the mark of educated people).
The poor housing which those on low and modest incomes have to suffer does bother me greatly in consequence and is something which needs to be properly addressed.
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Pacific rim trade deal signed after 5 years negotiations. Canada says they do not expect job losses but that 'industry will have to adapt'. Hmm.
Is that not always the case with free trade? Some jobs are lost to overseas markets, but a country's more efficient industries gain greater access to markets, creating and protecting other - higher paying - jobs. Both the losers and the winners will have to adapt - the former to either find a way to be competitive or change business, the latter to increase production.
It's not just a question of tariffs, it is common environmental rules and intellectual property rights, opening previously closed markets. So called big pharma will have to give up its secrets sooner. The issue of currency devaluation is significant as well. People need to wake up to what trade deals cover. The extremes of both left and right do not like it and only one representative of congress went to Atlanta to monitor the final discussions.
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
A lot of posters on here seem to have forgotten there was an election where significantly more people voted tory than labour. Most of the arguments have been won and - sorry - lost.
TUC bloke yesterday was protesting outside the tory conference had also forgotten this, saying (I paraphrase) he wanted to send a message that the policies put forward by the tories weren't popular.
Define "popular" mate...?
The poll tax was in the victorious 1987 manifesto. Do you think that argument had been won?
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
Humiliation is every time luckyguy opens his mouth
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
There are no Russian Migs in Syria, me old cock sparrer!
They are not getting a kick in the teeth, they are being subsidised by the rest of us, only rather less so. This will cause them to review their circumstances. Either they will decide that work is not worth it or they will work more. That means the employers using them have to find ways of having those hours filled either by paying more or by employing for longer.
But it's an illusion to think that most people in this situation have a choice. Someone working part-time in a shop can't simply decide to put in an extra 5 hours. I know a number of former constituents who have been trying for a long time to increase their hours, but their employers don't feel the additional work will produce enough additional revenue. This doesn't make either the employers wicked or the staff lazy - it's just a fact of business life. Nor are alternative jobs with more opportunities always readily available.
For people in this situation, it is indeed a kick in the teeth.
You are letting the employers off way too easy Nick. The present situation suits them just fine. And if they have to work a little longer to tidy up or do that last visit or clean the glasses everyone knows that they will because they need to keep their 16 hours.
What the present situation does is let a tranche of our lowest skilled, worst paid, least secure employees be exploited. It allows this because it makes sure they can survive with the help of the State. It allows the employers to use such casual labour in a brutal way because they are trapped.
This needs to stop. If they can no longer work because the subsidy from the rest of us is no longer enough they have to make hard choices but so do their employers.
For most of these people this will be a transitional stage during studies or whatever but for some it is their life and they deserve better. And that won't happen until we change the rules of engagement.
Pacific rim trade deal signed after 5 years negotiations. Canada says they do not expect job losses but that 'industry will have to adapt'. Hmm.
Is that not always the case with free trade? Some jobs are lost to overseas markets, but a country's more efficient industries gain greater access to markets, creating and protecting other - higher paying - jobs. Both the losers and the winners will have to adapt - the former to either find a way to be competitive or change business, the latter to increase production.
It's not just a question of tariffs, it is common environmental rules and intended!lectial property opening previously closed markets. So called big pharma will have to give up its secrets sooner. The issue of currency devaluation is significant as well. People need to wake up to what trade deals cover. The extremes of both left and right do not like it and only one representative of congress went to Atlanta to monitor the final discussions.
That only one member of Congress was there is not particularly surprising as Fast Track status had been granted.
Can't say that what you have listed changes my view of it - I'd have thought leveling the playing field on environmental, worker protection and IP rules, and limiting the use of exchange rates to achieve market distorting advantage would all, in and of themselves, be good things in the big picture and the long run.
Pacific rim trade deal signed after 5 years negotiations. Canada says they do not expect job losses but that 'industry will have to adapt'. Hmm.
Is that not always the case with free trade? Some jobs are lost to overseas markets, but a country's more efficient industries gain greater access to markets, creating and protecting other - higher paying - jobs. Both the losers and the winners will have to adapt - the former to either find a way to be competitive or change business, the latter to increase production.
Free trade sucks if you are an uncompetitive, protected industry.
It is a classic example of the gains being spread widely (all consumers), but the losses being concentrated (previously protected firms).
One of the reasons why lobbying is so effective is because it can point to specific impacts on a relatively small number of people, while the winners are diffuse, and often don't realise they are winners.
It takes politicians of courage to look beyond the easy answer and the vested interests.
Indeed. The fact that people value what they lose more than what they gain means that it is very hard to tackle vested interests, particularly where, as you point out, the gains are diffuse and the pain concentrated.
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
There are no Russian Migs in Syria, me old cock sparrer!
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
Humiliation is every time luckyguy opens his mouth
Yes, but I prefer to ignore your ramblings rather than humiliate you these days. It began to seem rather cruel.
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
They are not getting a kick in the teeth, they are being subsidised by the rest of us, only rather less so. This will cause them to review their circumstances. Either they will decide that work is not worth it or they will work more. That means the employers using them have to find ways of having those hours filled either by paying more or by employing for longer.
But it's an illusion to think that most people in this situation have a choice. Someone working part-time in a shop can't simply decide to put in an extra 5 hours. I know a number of former constituents who have been trying for a long time to increase their hours, but their employers don't feel the additional work will produce enough additional revenue. This doesn't make either the employers wicked or the staff lazy - it's just a fact of business life. Nor are alternative jobs with more opportunities always readily available.
For people in this situation, it is indeed a kick in the teeth.
Employers exploiting the poorly paid and taking advantage of the fact that the government will step in. Hmm. There may be some hard cases. But there was a time when Labour stood up to exploitative employers not let them off the hook, as DavidL has pointed out.
They are not getting a kick in the teeth, they are being subsidised by the rest of us, only rather less so. This will cause them to review their circumstances. Either they will decide that work is not worth it or they will work more. That means the employers using them have to find ways of having those hours filled either by paying more or by employing for longer.
But it's an illusion to think that most people in this situation have a choice. Someone working part-time in a shop can't simply decide to put in an extra 5 hours. I know a number of former constituents who have been trying for a long time to increase their hours, but their employers don't feel the additional work will produce enough additional revenue. This doesn't make either the employers wicked or the staff lazy - it's just a fact of business life. Nor are alternative jobs with more opportunities always readily available.
For people in this situation, it is indeed a kick in the teeth.
Of course their employers don't feel it's worth it. Right now they can pay people substantially less than what the free market would dictate because it's being topped up by tax credits. Why bother employing one person full time when you can have two people half-time and have labour costs subsidised by the state? This is commonplace throughout the retail sector.
With the tax credit changes, people are going to start looking to get more hours elsewhere and the employer will have to offer better pay and hours to keep their staff. This is already happening, with several employers improving their deal to employees.
They are not getting a kick in the teeth, they are being subsidised by the rest of us, only rather less so. This will cause them to review their circumstances. Either they will decide that work is not worth it or they will work more. That means the employers using them have to find ways of having those hours filled either by paying more or by employing for longer.
But it's an illusion to think that most people in this situation have a choice. Someone working part-time in a shop can't simply decide to put in an extra 5 hours. I know a number of former constituents who have been trying for a long time to increase their hours, but their employers don't feel the additional work will produce enough additional revenue. This doesn't make either the employers wicked or the staff lazy - it's just a fact of business life. Nor are alternative jobs with more opportunities always readily available.
For people in this situation, it is indeed a kick in the teeth.
You are letting the employers off way too easy Nick. The present situation suits them just fine. And if they have to work a little longer to tidy up or do that last visit or clean the glasses everyone knows that they will because they need to keep their 16 hours.
What the present situation does is let a tranche of our lowest skilled, worst paid, least secure employees be exploited. It allows this because it makes sure they can survive with the help of the State. It allows the employers to use such casual labour in a brutal way because they are trapped.
This needs to stop. If they can no longer work because the subsidy from the rest of us is no longer enough they have to make hard choices but so do their employers.
For most of these people this will be a transitional stage during studies or whatever but for some it is their life and they deserve better. And that won't happen until we change the rules of engagement.
In 2001 welfare was 58 billion. In 2011- which is affectively after 10 years of Labour/Brown it was 112 billion. 2001 was itself after 4 years of Labour. So why the need of all this welfare under a labour administration.
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
Humiliation is every time luckyguy opens his mouth
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
There are no Russian Migs in Syria, me old cock sparrer!
Sukhoi, MiG - it's all the same. Still knackered.
Quite a forensic approach to accuracy there, no wonder you're so well informed on world events.
The line for the tax credit cut is very simple, "we're making it pay to work", "we're relinking hours worked with money earned". Labour created this tangled mess of means tested in work benefits and undoing it is not an easy task. Just as they are with the deficit, Labour are acting like both the arsonist and the person who condemns the firemen for taking too long to put out the fire they started.
Labour created this mess now someone else has to fix it. We have a system which pays people to not take on more work and, perversely, actually takes money off people who work between 17-24 hours per week vs 16 hours per week on the minimum wage. The whole working tax credit system is not fit for purpose and needs junking. We need to eliminate in-working benefits, they are a subsidy for companies who don't want to pay employees a fair wage, nothing more and it amazes me that people on the left can't see how perverse it is that the government and tax payer is subsidising these business models which thrive on low wage labour.
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
You would have been the first one to bemoan the civilian deaths from the bombing had it been ordered by Obama rather than Putin. Your inconsistency is very clear.
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
There are no Russian Migs in Syria, me old cock sparrer!
Sukhoi, MiG - it's all the same. Still knackered.
Quite a forensic approach to accuracy there, no wonder you're so well informed on world events.
Looking at some of the footage from CPC15 - I see quite a few grinning policemen/women. Those barriers could be moved much further back. Someone is going to get seriously hurt.
Greater Manchester Police are the most left-wing, politically correct in the country, in my opinion (I speak as a Mancunian).
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
You would have been the first one to bemoan the civilian deaths from the bombing had it been ordered by Obama rather than Putin. Your inconsistency is very clear.
I would have done no such thing, nor was I 'outraged' when the Kunduz hospital was hit, I said here it was likely the Taleban were using it as a shelter.
Find me one peice of evidence that the Russians have hit civilians. They're not even bombing civilian areas.
NATO is demanding Russia immediately halts air strikes in Syria: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34448942 Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
Humiliation is every time luckyguy opens his mouth
What did this post contribute to the discussion?
It contributes to pointing out luckyguys anti American bigotry. Russia does not give a damn about Isis.
NATO is demanding Russia immediately halts air strikes in Syria: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34448942 Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
Humiliation is every time luckyguy opens his mouth
What did this post contribute to the discussion?
It contributes to pointing out luckyguys anti American bigotry. Russia does not give a damn about Isis.
They might - if it looked like ISIS was going to over-run their port facilities....
Pacific rim trade deal signed after 5 years negotiations. Canada says they do not expect job losses but that 'industry will have to adapt'. Hmm.
Is that not always the case with free trade? Some jobs are lost to overseas markets, but a country's more efficient industries gain greater access to markets, creating and protecting other - higher paying - jobs. Both the losers and the winners will have to adapt - the former to either find a way to be competitive or change business, the latter to increase production.
Free trade sucks if you are an uncompetitive, protected industry.
It is a classic example of the gains being spread widely (all consumers), but the losses being concentrated (previously protected firms).
One of the reasons why lobbying is so effective is because it can point to specific impacts on a relatively small number of people, while the winners are diffuse, and often don't realise they are winners.
It takes politicians of courage to look beyond the easy answer and the vested interests.
This is right, although there are exceptions of widespread losses that politicians should try to avoid:
- Environmental damage, which may be increased if standards are excessively stripped down. - Sovereignty loss, where deals are enshrined permanently and can not be easily changed. This can lead to a lack of faith in political systems which we all suffer from. - Economic losses to low skill workers in wealthy nations, who can be outcompeted by cheaper labour in poor nations but do not have the skills to move into high skill jobs.
Mr. Max, indeed. Withdrawal from drug addiction is painful, as is reinserting a dislocated joint, but that doesn't mean it's a wrong step.
Plenty of potential for bad political consequences for the Conservatives, though.
Fortunately, no experience with the former (still pandering my caffeine addiction), but alas way to much experience of the latter - including on uninhabited island, with the wife putting the shoulder back in. A week with only ibuprofen (and alcohol) to numb the pain before we sailed back to civilization.
Why the hell weren't the Police intervening to prevent this sort of abuse?
Yes, it might appear quite funny to be throwing balls at people - but it isn't. It is unacceptable under any circumstances and when you view it alongside the other intimidation and assaults that have been recorded over the past 2 days, it is a really poisonous atmosphere.
And one that the Police seem unwilling to prevent from escalating.
Mr. Max, indeed. Withdrawal from drug addiction is painful, as is reinserting a dislocated joint, but that doesn't mean it's a wrong step.
Plenty of potential for bad political consequences for the Conservatives, though.
I don't think so. If someone is truly earning less money at the end of this current Parliament than they were before the tax, welfare and minimum wage changes due to come in then they have to seriously look at their lifestyle and motivation to work and earn money. An additional 3-4 hours per week would more than make up for any losses in the tax credit changes, if someone is so lazy that they can't add an hour per shift to their working pattern then it is a failure of personal responsibility.
The line for the tax credit cut is very simple, "we're making it pay to work", "we're relinking hours worked with money earned". Labour created this tangled mess of means tested in work benefits and undoing it is not an easy task. Just as they are with the deficit, Labour are acting like both the arsonist and the person who condemns the firemen for taking too long to put out the fire they started.
Labour created this mess now someone else has to fix it. We have a system which pays people to not take on more work and, perversely, actually takes money off people who work between 17-24 hours per week vs 16 hours per week on the minimum wage. The whole working tax credit system is not fit for purpose and needs junking. We need to eliminate in-working benefits, they are a subsidy for companies who don't want to pay employees a fair wage, nothing more and it amazes me that people on the left can't see how perverse it is that the government and tax payer is subsidising these business models which thrive on low wage labour.
It is perverse, but the answer is not to take the money straight from the pockets of the low paid. Why not increase the minimum wage even further? Isn't it about making work pay?
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
You would have been the first one to bemoan the civilian deaths from the bombing had it been ordered by Obama rather than Putin. Your inconsistency is very clear.
I would have done no such thing, nor was I 'outraged' when the Kunduz hospital was hit, I said here it was likely the Taleban were using it as a shelter.
Find me one peice of evidence that the Russians have hit civilians. They're not even bombing civilian areas.
So you have never criticised the civilian costs when the Americans have targeted Islamists with drone strikes?
Looking at some of the footage from CPC15 - I see quite a few grinning policemen/women. Those barriers could be moved much further back. Someone is going to get seriously hurt.
Greater Manchester Police are the most left-wing, politically correct in the country, in my opinion (I speak as a Mancunian).
Interesting. I still remember when their then Chief Constable was asked if they had enough resources to cope for the riots and replied they had enough to invade a Central American country. Their robust response to the rioters completely showed up the Met and won a lot of kudos at the time.
Wonder how close Osborne asked them to have the fences? Just a thought.
Comments
....since 2011 the proportion of students from state schools entering Scotland’s elite universities has fallen. And while the proportion of university students from non-professional backgrounds has risen by just 0.2 percentage points, to 26.8%, in England it has gone up from 30.9% to 33.1%.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21670045-scrapping-tuition-fees-has-helped-rich-students-expense-poor-ones-costly-promise
Are you saying in essence that these changes are all about the end of a subsidy for a lifestyle choice?
Yet Chinese productivity is improving rapidly, and it's the direction of travel that needs to be considered.
The US has the same subsidy for low income labour as we do, and even more open borders for low skill immigration.
"the working poor need benefits to survive."
I suddenly feel very old and very Yorkshire-ish (even though I'm not the latter).
I grew up in a council estate in the fifties, eight of us in a three bed house with one wage-earner, a labourer. I wore hand-me-downs until I was in my teens. Nearly all around us worked even though some were illiterate.
We never knew central heating or carpets or boilers or holidays (one day trip to Skeg) but we never considered ourselves poor because everyone was the same and we had an inside toilet. What you'd call poverty rather than relative poverty.
But we had disorganised, dysfunctional families around us and money doesn't always help there. Sometimes it does, but it's an issue no one likes to face.
To some Tories, welfare is often squandered. To the Corbynites, money is a panacea and everyone who disagrees is a cnut. Both simplistic and both childish.
Now I've got to find three other Yorkshiremen.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-possible-2016-announcement-214423
How social mobility is helped by allowing these children of professionals enter their well paid careers without debt is simply beyond me. The price is paid in the number of places the Scottish Government can fund. And guess who loses out there?
(But you are quite right :-) )
I am saying that is where the problem is and by lying about it and pretending that the problem is with full time employees the real issue is being overlooked. We need to hope that the flood of full time jobs we have seen over the last 4-5 years continues. If it does not there will be real hardship.
I accept that there will be people hit by that. But we need to stop running up debt in this country, and we are already too highly taxed. That means spending needs to be cut and that is always going to be hard. The question is how do you cut in a way that sets up a good system of incentives for individuals and companies so that the immediate effect of the cut is cushioned by improving the long term growth of wages.
That is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. They did not think about long term effects while we do.
I personally believe his role is as a steadying hand to the next incoming leader.
Not as simple as asking for an extra half day every week...
Remember the 2010 starting point was people earning a mere £10K were paying something like £700 in income tax, and nine out of ten families were getting welfare handouts. That was clearly bonkers, and we are gradually getting back towards some semblance of sanity.
In an ideal world we would squeeze this group out of existence by making it impossible for them to be in that position because it is simply not viable. Employers then have to offer full time work to get the staff. In the long run I believe we will all be better off from this but it is stupid to pretend that there will not be real hardship in the interim.
This is difficult social engineering but it is happening without meaningful debate because Labour would rather talk about those in full time work with 6 kids or whatever who may lose out, or may not. Labour is once again simply not doing its job.
Well if he's no longer a Tory some might consider it progress.
If you want a culture of higher pay, you need higher productivity and hence you have to remove obstacles to achieving that.
So yes, something is wrong with the status quo and policy changes are required.
Teaching assistants, dinner ladies, cleaners etc.
Why is Osborne choosing to target them?
Because of the mess Labour has got itself in to, I think even Osborne will be able to win the Tories another term in office in 2020... But I've no doubt George Osborne will be a very unpopular Prime Minister, vastly more unpopular than Cameron and Tories should be in no doubt that as soon as Labour get's their act together George Osborne will lead the Conservatives back to the wilderness.
Labour is making it abundantly clear it does not want a vote like mine.
The likes of Palmer and all the other dissembling Labourites should read their own manifesto. Fat chance. They do nothing but lie about the NHS and their plans for it.
The Labour party as you know it and have known it has ceased to exist.
If the Blues lost every single one of them, without picking up any voters elsewhere, that would be a 4% drop in the polls for them - which would be damaging, but is very unlikely to happen.
TUC bloke yesterday was protesting outside the tory conference had also forgotten this, saying (I paraphrase) he wanted to send a message that the policies put forward by the tories weren't popular.
Define "popular" mate...?
'Acute hospitals are receiving less income than in 2010 (even in cash terms) they are treating 40% more patients with no extra money.'
An excellent illustration of how poor their productivity was prior to 2010.
This is big coup for Obama. It will really help the US economy and it has confirmed the US as pre-eminent in setting the Asian trade framework over the Chinese.
For people in this situation, it is indeed a kick in the teeth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34448942
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Air France chiefs flee in terror as they're attacked over job cuts
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/air-france-chiefs-flee-terror-6578552 …
Looks like Corbynism is spreading
It is a classic example of the gains being spread widely (all consumers), but the losses being concentrated (previously protected firms).
One of the reasons why lobbying is so effective is because it can point to specific impacts on a relatively small number of people, while the winners are diffuse, and often don't realise they are winners.
It takes politicians of courage to look beyond the easy answer and the vested interests.
Bad housing on the other hand marks you for life. I grew up in a flat, rented, which was so neglected by the landlord who took over that it was declared unfit for human habitation under the 1952 Housing Act by the local authority who ordered the landlord to carry out various essential remedial works to ensure it was not riddled with damp and dry rot. This may explain why I have suffered from lung problems all my life. We did not think of ourselves as poor - even relatively so - because my parents always gave me good food, wonderful experiences, a love of reading and education and the belief that you judge people by how they behave, how interesting they are, how funny and kind and not by what they have or how much they boast about their money and possessions (which was seen as ineffably vulgar and not the mark of educated people).
The poor housing which those on low and modest incomes have to suffer does bother me greatly in consequence and is something which needs to be properly addressed.
What the present situation does is let a tranche of our lowest skilled, worst paid, least secure employees be exploited. It allows this because it makes sure they can survive with the help of the State. It allows the employers to use such casual labour in a brutal way because they are trapped.
This needs to stop. If they can no longer work because the subsidy from the rest of us is no longer enough they have to make hard choices but so do their employers.
For most of these people this will be a transitional stage during studies or whatever but for some it is their life and they deserve better. And that won't happen until we change the rules of engagement.
Can't say that what you have listed changes my view of it - I'd have thought leveling the playing field on environmental, worker protection and IP rules, and limiting the use of exchange rates to achieve market distorting advantage would all, in and of themselves, be good things in the big picture and the long run.
With the tax credit changes, people are going to start looking to get more hours elsewhere and the employer will have to offer better pay and hours to keep their staff. This is already happening, with several employers improving their deal to employees.
In 2011- which is affectively after 10 years of Labour/Brown it was 112 billion.
2001 was itself after 4 years of Labour. So why the need of all this welfare under a labour administration.
Labour created this mess now someone else has to fix it. We have a system which pays people to not take on more work and, perversely, actually takes money off people who work between 17-24 hours per week vs 16 hours per week on the minimum wage. The whole working tax credit system is not fit for purpose and needs junking. We need to eliminate in-working benefits, they are a subsidy for companies who don't want to pay employees a fair wage, nothing more and it amazes me that people on the left can't see how perverse it is that the government and tax payer is subsidising these business models which thrive on low wage labour.
Plenty of potential for bad political consequences for the Conservatives, though.
Greater Manchester Police are the most left-wing, politically correct in the country, in my opinion (I speak as a Mancunian).
Find me one peice of evidence that the Russians have hit civilians. They're not even bombing civilian areas.
- Environmental damage, which may be increased if standards are excessively stripped down.
- Sovereignty loss, where deals are enshrined permanently and can not be easily changed. This can lead to a lack of faith in political systems which we all suffer from.
- Economic losses to low skill workers in wealthy nations, who can be outcompeted by cheaper labour in poor nations but do not have the skills to move into high skill jobs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=93&v=YfbmXIi6NNg
Why the hell weren't the Police intervening to prevent this sort of abuse?
Yes, it might appear quite funny to be throwing balls at people - but it isn't. It is unacceptable under any circumstances and when you view it alongside the other intimidation and assaults that have been recorded over the past 2 days, it is a really poisonous atmosphere.
And one that the Police seem unwilling to prevent from escalating.
Wonder how close Osborne asked them to have the fences? Just a thought.