Mr McKelvie has told the BBC he did not claim to Mr Watson that there had been a "Westminster paedophile ring" and pointed out that the police investigations which followed the Commons statement had led to convictions of two men who were part of the original paedophile ring.
Daily Politics have just shown the clip from last night's Question Time re alleged Tory voter and tax credits. The BBC are going to chew over this, like a Jack Russell with a bone.
I see they are asking for anyone who knows who she is, to get in touch.
Why do I get the feeling I have seen her somewhere before??
I doubt she voted Tory
Why?
Seemed like too obvious a set up...
Last knockings of the show and she just ranted about a different subject to the one being discussed without asking a question... Very similar to the labour plant in Ramsgate last year vs Diane James
Daily Politics have just shown the clip from last night's Question Time re alleged Tory voter and tax credits. The BBC are going to chew over this, like a Jack Russell with a bone.
I see they are asking for anyone who knows who she is, to get in touch.
Why do I get the feeling I have seen her somewhere before??
I doubt she voted Tory
Why?
Seemed like too obvious a set up...
Last knockings of the show and she just ranted about a different subject to the one being discussed without asking a question... Very similar to the labour plant in Ramsgate last year vs Diane James
Presume you think this guy isn;t a Tory either
Tory member Charlie Evans, a politics student at Exeter University, tweeted: "I actually feel sick to my stomach to be a member of the Conservative Party tonight over #taxcredits. That lady spoke for millions."
It just struck me watching it they she might be a plant... Maybe she wasn't. No need to get your knickers in a twist
Be honest, you have no basis whatsoever for concluding she was lying about voting Tory, you just wanted to attack her credibility because you don't like what she said.
Can't decide whether the failure this far to find her suggests trickery or not. On balance, trickery as we know from yesterday she ain't camera shy. Of course pretty well anyone who goes on a show like QT audience has to be at least a tanner short of a [tax credit] shilling.
Speaking of QT, does everyone remember the episode where a Labour plant attacked UKIP but picked the wrong panel and got b*tchslapped to high heavens by Mad Melanie Phillips? Great TV!
Daily Politics have just shown the clip from last night's Question Time re alleged Tory voter and tax credits. The BBC are going to chew over this, like a Jack Russell with a bone.
I see they are asking for anyone who knows who she is, to get in touch.
Why do I get the feeling I have seen her somewhere before??
I doubt she voted Tory
Why?
Seemed like too obvious a set up...
Last knockings of the show and she just ranted about a different subject to the one being discussed without asking a question... Very similar to the labour plant in Ramsgate last year vs Diane James
Daily Politics have just shown the clip from last night's Question Time re alleged Tory voter and tax credits. The BBC are going to chew over this, like a Jack Russell with a bone.
I see they are asking for anyone who knows who she is, to get in touch.
Why do I get the feeling I have seen her somewhere before??
I doubt she voted Tory
Why?
Seemed like too obvious a set up...
Last knockings of the show and she just ranted about a different subject to the one being discussed without asking a question... Very similar to the labour plant in Ramsgate last year vs Diane James
Presume you think this guy isn;t a Tory either
Tory member Charlie Evans, a politics student at Exeter University, tweeted: "I actually feel sick to my stomach to be a member of the Conservative Party tonight over #taxcredits. That lady spoke for millions."
It just struck me watching it they she might be a plant... Maybe she wasn't. No need to get your knickers in a twist
Be honest, you have no basis whatsoever for concluding she was lying about voting Tory, you just wanted to attack her credibility because you don't like what she said.
Whatever the truth about this particular person, the reality is IMHO that many, many voters did not understand that the welfare state and benefits includes tax credits. For starters it is a process handled by HMRC. That is why the spoof newspaper article is so spot on.
There is more trouble coming down the road. Many (most?) people do not realise that tax credits will be rolled into the emerging Universal Credit system. I'm sure that will go swimmingly.
This is a discussion over semantics. The case was reviewed. The review recommended taking an action that had hitherto not been taken before the initial investigation had been concluded. The MET conceded the results of that review were correct. The interview then happened. Hopefully that's a form of words we can both subscribe to.
The argument here yesterday and previously was that the investigation had been re-opened without justification at the behest of Tom Watson. Yesterday I said it appeared to be more because the alleged victim wasn't interviewed the first time round, and that seemed wrong (this was strenuously disagreed with). Now we find that after the case closed, it was reviewed, and a recommendation made to interview under caution. You can slice that any way you like, but the only thing I can see that is really unjust was the lack of rigour in the initial investigation, which had it done its work properly in the first place, and had it cleared Lord Brittan of wrongdoing, may have improved his quality of life in his last months.
(For 'victim' here please read 'perpetrator' - misstype)
I see lots of ad hominem stuff on the woman on QT, both from the left ("Ha, why did she vote Tory then?") and the right ("Can't believe she voted Tory"). I don't think either side should pick on her personally - the point is that she's struck a nerve, and I doubt if it's been lost on Osborne.
On a (somewhat) less contentious issue, there's a survey of EU officials etc. of some interest here:
Trying to avoid the political conversations at work, as the people who thought it was a good idea not to vote are now going on about how David Cameron is the best of a bad bunch anyway
Trying to avoid the political conversations at work, as the people who thought it was a good idea not to vote are now going on about how David Cameron is the best of a bad bunch anyway
Yes in FPTP it seems its decided by the lesser of two evils
That is simply not correct. It was the identification process which was done because it was usual procedure.
This is the relevant quote - "In response, the CPS said that before it was able to review the evidence, there were other inquiries the MPS should complete. It referred to the fact that the complainant had not been asked formally to identify Lord Brittan - a procedure required when the accused person has disputed being involved in the alleged incident."
You said that the failure to interview was found to be at odds with usual procedure. But the report does not state that. So you are wrong in making that point. It was only the failure to do the identification which was not in line with usual procedure.
This is a discussion over semantics. The case was reviewed. The review recommended taking an action that had hitherto not been taken before the initial investigation had been concluded. The MET conceded the results of that review were correct. The interview then happened. Hopefully that's a form of words we can both subscribe to.
The argument here yesterday and previously was that the investigation had been re-opened without justification at the behest of Tom Watson. Yesterday I said it appeared to be more because the alleged victim wasn't interviewed the first time round, and that seemed wrong (this was strenuously disagreed with). Now we find that after the case closed, it was reviewed, and a recommendation made to interview under caution. You can slice that any way you like, but the only thing I can see that is really unjust was the lack of rigour in the initial investigation, which had it done its work properly in the first place, and had it cleared Lord Brittan of wrongdoing, may have improved his quality of life in his last months.
I think that we can all agree that the police should have informed Lord Brittan that the inquiry had been closed. That they didn't was disgraceful. The reasons for why they didn't - as set out in the MPS report - are even more disgraceful.
I also think that Watson, once he had properly referred the matter to the police, had no business using Parliamentary privilege to make emotive statements about an individual while the investigation was still continuing. The risk was exactly that set out in the report - that the police would feel unable to say that the investigation had concluded with no action to be taken because of their fear of the media storm they would be involved in. Watson - as an MP - should have been, at the very least, a bit more thoughtful about ensuring that he did not contribute to such a media storm and thereby cause unfairness to an individual.
Nail bar failing, might as well become a cause celebre for the left. Some media interviews at a few hundred pounds a pop as "the woman who took on the Tories", perhaps even a Guardian article published or a spot on Celeb Big Brother.
I think it's a smart move for her personally ^_~
Gov't needs to look into th interaction of small/personal businesses and tax credits/other benefits now for sure though.
" I don’t think any liberal celebrity has slipped quite so conspicuously since Stephen Fry denounced public concern during the MPs expenses scandal as being ‘tedious, bourgeois’.
Of course, like so many other advocates of mass immigration, Simon Schama can probably live pretty much where he wants. And if the area around him goes somewhat downhill because the neighbours all start to come from the rougher corners of Eritrea then Simon Schama can move. And he will probably move to a very nice area. But of course not everybody has that choice. And one thing we can all be certain of is that Simon Schama will probably never choose to live in Bradford, Malmo or any of the (dare I say it) ‘suburbs’ outside Paris. Yet all the time he will urge other peoples’ neighbourhoods to more closely resemble those great success stories, and look down at people from an ever-loftier height when they dare to object."
At the moment grammar schools are generally found in places where house prices are high, and attended by rich kids whose parents pay for private tutoring.
This leads to dimwits claiming that 'free school meal kids are underrepresented' at 21st century Grammar schools.. Can people REALLY be that stupid? It is because there are so few of them you ****s
If there were a grammar school in every constituency, in the poorest part of that constituency, it would lead to poor kids being able to attend them, or if they don't pass the exam, going to a better comp than they would have previously. The areas near the grammar school would become more desirable to live in, and the kids wouldn't be consigned to the dustbin that is the worst comp in the manor
A very similar thought crossed my mind the other day, so as my final offer on grammar schools today, an honest appraisal. It would encourage more local applicants from poor areas than is currently the case, but the whole point of grammar school is selection ahead of catchment, so middle-class kids would still bus in in large numbers (even at the 1 per constituency level you propose). Meanwhile, some parents would resent not being able to send their kids to their 'local' school, locality being more important to many poorer parents for convenience and cost. If the next school along is 'better' some would go for it, but there is not necessarily a one-to-one mapping, you are just as likely to be sending some kids to a similarly struggling catchment school, except a couple of miles further away.
At best, it could work more or less as you say, at worst it could be highly incendiary, with stroppy WWC Mums fronting down busses of middle-class of kids in almost Northern Ireland style scenes. So it would have to be done, if at all, with the kind of almost PC sensitivity and engagement with the community that kippers don't yet have much political experience of handling.
For a UKIP policy to engage with the WWC in such a way might ultimately be, as Sir Humphrey would say, courageous. If you or your fellows get into a position to enact this somewhere, I wish them luck and beg them care.
Wow, so she runs a dodgy nail salon which apparently makes no money. Sounds like a self-employment scam to me. I would like tax inspectors to go in and investigate this business. A nail salon has such a low level of expenses and high level of income, it is virtually impossible to run one at a loss without expensive rent to pay.
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
At the moment grammar schools are generally found in places where house prices are high, and attended by rich kids whose parents pay for private tutoring.
This leads to dimwits claiming that 'free school meal kids are underrepresented' at 21st century Grammar schools.. Can people REALLY be that stupid? It is because there are so few of them you ****s
If there were a grammar school in every constituency, in the poorest part of that constituency, it would lead to poor kids being able to attend them, or if they don't pass the exam, going to a better comp than they would have previously. The areas near the grammar school would become more desirable to live in, and the kids wouldn't be consigned to the dustbin that is the worst comp in the manor
A very similar thought crossed my mind the other day, so as my final offer on grammar schools today, an honest appraisal. It would encourage more local applicants from poor areas than is currently the case, but the whole point of grammar school is selection ahead of catchment, so middle-class kids would still bus in in large numbers (even at the 1 per constituency level you propose). Meanwhile, some parents would resent not being able to send their kids to their 'local' school, locality being more important to many poorer parents for convenience and cost. If the next school along is 'better' some would go for it, but there is not necessarily a one-to-one mapping, you are just as likely to be sending some kids to a similarly struggling catchment school, except a couple of miles further away.
At best, it could work more or less as you say, at worst it could be highly incendiary, with stroppy WWC Mums fronting down busses of middle-class of kids in almost Northern Ireland style scenes. So it would have to be done, if at all, with the kind of almost PC sensitivity and engagement with the community that kippers don't yet have much political experience of handling.
For a UKIP policy to engage with the WWC in such a way might ultimately be, as Sir Humphrey would say, courageous. If you or your fellows get into a position to enact this somewhere, I wish them luck and beg them care.
All of which kind of ignores the fact that Grammar schools already exist and operate very well in a number of different parts of the country. The effects you talk of don't happen because the non Grammar schools are also very good and there is sufficient density of schools that 'local' is less of a problem. Indeed in the case of the a school like Will Rob on the borders of Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire it is a case of pupils being bused in to a very good Comp rather than a Grammar school.
'"I came off benefits, I started a new business - Chelle's designer nails. I work as hard as I can and if I'm lucky make £150 a week.
"The reason my business doesn't make any profit is everything goes back into it with products and advertising. I'm trying to keep people coming.
"When they cut tax credits my business goes to the floor and I lose my company. All those people that have the money to have treats like doing their nails won't be able to any more."'
'"I came off benefits, I started a new business - Chelle's designer nails. I work as hard as I can and if I'm lucky make £150 a week.
"The reason my business doesn't make any profit is everything goes back into it with products and advertising. I'm trying to keep people coming.
"When they cut tax credits my business goes to the floor and I lose my company. All those people that have the money to have treats like doing their nails won't be able to any more."'
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
Surely the issue is that the system has allowed he to open up a failing business and then live off tax credits? Working tax credit for self employment has always been open to abuse, if people who abuse it are going to lose out then I'm not going to shed many tears for them. Let them find gainful employment or actually make money from their businesses rather than just have it exist for state top ups.
At the moment grammar schools are generally found in places where house prices are high, and attended by rich kids whose parents pay for private tutoring.
This leads to dimwits claiming that 'free school meal kids are underrepresented' at 21st century Grammar schools.. Can people REALLY be that stupid? It is because there are so few of them you ****s
If there were a grammar school in every constituency, in the poorest part of that constituency, it would lead to poor kids being able to attend them, or if they don't pass the exam, going to a better comp than they would have previously. The areas near the grammar school would become more desirable to live in, and the kids wouldn't be consigned to the dustbin that is the worst comp in the manor
Not exactly true Isam. Lincolnshire has Grammars and the average house price in Lincolnshire is £162,000 compared to a national average price of £250,000. Even within Lincolnshire the Grammars are not concentrated in the affluent areas.
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
Surely the issue is that the system has allowed he to open up a failing business and then live off tax credits? Working tax credit for self employment has always been open to abuse, if people who abuse it are going to lose out then I'm not going to shed many tears for them. Let them find gainful employment or actually make money from their businesses rather than just have it exist for state top ups.
She could have earned more working in a real nail bar - and the tax payer would have been better off.
On tax credits, my general starting position is to take a fairly hard line, but it does feel like there are going to be a lot of anecdotal stories of people losing out which will strike a chord with people, and plenty from people who in theory support it until they or someone they know loses out.
On the one hand some thought the bedroom 'tax' would be a similarly damaging thing, but I feel like whatever the fairness or realities of the government proposals, there's already a much more successful effort at damaging the perception of the proposals on this one.
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
It shows what a complete mess the whole Tax Credits system is, when it's used to prop up failing 'businesses'. Clearly due some major reform.
It's a real eye opener for those of us taxpayers who don't claim, but are paying for them.
'"I came off benefits, I started a new business - Chelle's designer nails. I work as hard as I can and if I'm lucky make £150 a week.
"The reason my business doesn't make any profit is everything goes back into it with products and advertising. I'm trying to keep people coming.
"When they cut tax credits my business goes to the floor and I lose my company. All those people that have the money to have treats like doing their nails won't be able to any more."'
Firstly £150 per week in revenue, at £10 per customer that's 15 customers a week, or 3 per day. Advertising? What advertising? It's a home based business it should be based on word of mouth and leafleting. Leaflets can be mass printed for a few quid these days and getting one of the kids to drop them into letter boxes is free or the price of pocket money. I highly doubt that she has costs of near or more than £10 in materials per customer and it is neither a capital intensive industry.
Either she is very bad a doing business or it's a self-employment tax credits scam. My guess is the latter. I would very much like HMRC to ask for copies of all customer receipts for the last year or so, see how many "clients" she actually has.
At the moment grammar schools are generally found in places where house prices are high, and attended by rich kids whose parents pay for private tutoring.
This leads to dimwits claiming that 'free school meal kids are underrepresented' at 21st century Grammar schools.. Can people REALLY be that stupid? It is because there are so few of them you ****s
If there were a grammar school in every constituency, in the poorest part of that constituency, it would lead to poor kids being able to attend them, or if they don't pass the exam, going to a better comp than they would have previously. The areas near the grammar school would become more desirable to live in, and the kids wouldn't be consigned to the dustbin that is the worst comp in the manor
Not exactly true Isam. Lincolnshire has Grammars and the average house price in Lincolnshire is £162,000 compared to a national average price of £250,000. Even within Lincolnshire the Grammars are not concentrated in the affluent areas.
Fair enough... The ones in Kent and Essex seem to be in the posher postcodes
At the moment grammar schools are generally found in places where house prices are high, and attended by rich kids whose parents pay for private tutoring.
This leads to dimwits claiming that 'free school meal kids are underrepresented' at 21st century Grammar schools.. Can people REALLY be that stupid? It is because there are so few of them you ****s
If there were a grammar school in every constituency, in the poorest part of that constituency, it would lead to poor kids being able to attend them, or if they don't pass the exam, going to a better comp than they would have previously. The areas near the grammar school would become more desirable to live in, and the kids wouldn't be consigned to the dustbin that is the worst comp in the manor
Not exactly true Isam. Lincolnshire has Grammars and the average house price in Lincolnshire is £162,000 compared to a national average price of £250,000. Even within Lincolnshire the Grammars are not concentrated in the affluent areas.
Fair enough... The ones in Kent and Essex seem to be in the posher postcodes
On tax credits, my general starting position is to take a fairly hard line, but it does feel like there are going to be a lot of anecdotal stories of people losing out which will strike a chord with people, and plenty from people who in theory support it until they or someone they know loses out.
But that is true of any change any government ever makes to the welfare (or tax) system, unless they just keep on doshing out more and more. There are literally millions of recipients, and the total tax credit bill is being reduced from the absurd level it had reached, so of course there will be people who miss out. How could it be otherwise?
The question isn't 'will there be losers?', but 'is it an improvement to the fairness and affordability of the welfare system?' The government has some electoral space and a mandate to make changes. The previous system was pretty bonkers however you look at it, as well as horrendously expensive and complicated to administer. Osborne has done a lot to mitigate the effects of the changes, in particular with the large increase to the minimum wage, tax reductions and help with child care. That will still leave some losers, especially on a static analysis.
We've had a good example of why a static analysis might not be the whole story with the nail-bar lady. Like other people whose businesses don't make any money, she might need to change what she does. It doesn't seem to me that there is an overriding public interest in subsidising her business in exactly the form it currently has.
Firstly £150 per week in revenue, at £10 per customer that's 15 customers a week, or 3 per day. Advertising? What advertising? It's a home based business it should be based on word of mouth and leafleting. Leaflets can be mass printed for a few quid these days and getting one of the kids to drop them into letter boxes is free or the price of pocket money. I highly doubt that she has costs of near or more than £10 in materials per customer and it is neither a capital intensive industry.
Either she is very bad a doing business or it's a self-employment tax credits scam. My guess is the latter. I would very much like HMRC to ask for copies of all customer receipts for the last year or so, see how many "clients" she actually has.
Firstly £150 per week in revenue, at £10 per customer that's 15 customers a week, or 3 per day. Advertising? What advertising? It's a home based business it should be based on word of mouth and leafleting. Leaflets can be mass printed for a few quid these days and getting one of the kids to drop them into letter boxes is free or the price of pocket money. I highly doubt that she has costs of near or more than £10 in materials per customer and it is neither a capital intensive industry.
Either she is very bad a doing business or it's a self-employment tax credits scam. My guess is the latter. I would very much like HMRC to ask for copies of all customer receipts for the last year or so, see how many "clients" she actually has.
If you're so bad at a business that you only make £150 a week you should put your kids first and go get a job that you don't like but pays more. My mum earns almost that much on the till at boots and she's pushing 70
Firstly £150 per week in revenue, at £10 per customer that's 15 customers a week, or 3 per day. Advertising? What advertising? It's a home based business it should be based on word of mouth and leafleting. Leaflets can be mass printed for a few quid these days and getting one of the kids to drop them into letter boxes is free or the price of pocket money. I highly doubt that she has costs of near or more than £10 in materials per customer and it is neither a capital intensive industry.
Either she is very bad a doing business or it's a self-employment tax credits scam. My guess is the latter. I would very much like HMRC to ask for copies of all customer receipts for the last year or so, see how many "clients" she actually has.
If you're so bad at a business that you only make £150 a week you should put your kids first and go get a job that you don't like but pays more. My mum earns almost that much on the till at boots and she's pushing 70
Exactly, go and work for bloody Sainsbury's for 20 hours a week, it's the same money and you get discounted products. Shelf stacking isn't exactly a taxing job.
Wow, so she runs a dodgy nail salon which apparently makes no money. Sounds like a self-employment scam to me. I would like tax inspectors to go in and investigate this business. A nail salon has such a low level of expenses and high level of income, it is virtually impossible to run one at a loss without expensive rent to pay.
Is it not an exampe of how tax credits are a scam? I am not interested in who she votes for, but she is a self employed person working it seems from her front room. Good for her. But there must be limits on just how much the tax payer should subsidise her attempts at business. I struggle to see how she is not earning a profit get receiving 150 a week at the same time. A loss making business pays no tax anyway. Of course as a result there are no tax allowances to help. And of course as a self employed person her income rests on her abilities, which if they sadly prove inadequate still leaves her an opportunity to find employment elsewhere. There have been no shortages of job opportunities over the last 5 years.
On tax credits, my general starting position is to take a fairly hard line, but it does feel like there are going to be a lot of anecdotal stories of people losing out which will strike a chord with people, and plenty from people who in theory support it until they or someone they know loses out.
It doesn't seem to me that there is an overriding public interest in subsidising her business in exactly the form it currently has.
I agree, and I agree some people will always lose out and therefore complain in these situations, however reasonable it might be given it is a public expenditure - though of course reasonable people will differ on what is reasonable - the fact there are going to be losers is not the significant factor in this blowing up as an issue, it's how many losers, how vocal will those losers be, and most vitally how well those losers resonate with the public at large. I personally, on the current reporting, do not have a great deal of sympathy, not to the point of thinking that some people will lose out is reason enough to change course, but it's a question of whether this change, in this form, despite the mitigations and the reasonableness in terms of reducing expenditure which may not have been very effective, will be one which suitably animates the public attitude against the government, fairly or not.
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
She may not be alone but that's true of any change ever. What are we supposed to? The country is paying more in Interest payments than what it would take to take basic rate tax to 15% and higher rate to 25% IIRC. Or more in Interest than most departments get to spend. We all lose out currently it just isn't so obvious.
If she is benefiting because of what is essentially tax fraud and benefit fraud because she's under-declaring her income on what is a cash in hand business then it is very relevant. That is the problem with the system at the moment that is so easy to abuse. It is far cleaner, simpler and more honest to have a system of higher wages, lower benefits and lower taxes.
As for crying that less people may want to have their nails done regularly if child tax credits are cut then priorities really need to be straightened out! Child benefits are not supposed to be there to get your nails done.
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
Maybe you're just a bit gullible - perhaps more so than the real voters you think you know so much about.
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
She may not be alone but that's true of any change ever. What are we supposed to?
Phase a transition with more sympathy for a group of people who are losing a lot of money over a short time frame.
I'm not opposed to the general principle behind the reform. I can see why it's being suggested. But by definition there are a group of people who need a decent lead-in time to adjust and who reasonably feel that their efforts to support themselves are being sabotaged by the government.
I'm pretty confident that there will be more to come on this in the Autumn Statement. The government is laying landmines for itself quite unnecessarily.
At the moment grammar schools are generally found in places where house prices are high, and attended by rich kids whose parents pay for private tutoring.
This leads to dimwits claiming that 'free school meal kids are underrepresented' at 21st century Grammar schools.. Can people REALLY be that stupid? It is because there are so few of them you ****s
If there were a grammar school in every constituency, in the poorest part of that constituency, it would lead to poor kids being able to attend them, or if they don't pass the exam, going to a better comp than they would have previously. The areas near the grammar school would become more desirable to live in, and the kids wouldn't be consigned to the dustbin that is the worst comp in the manor
Not exactly true Isam. Lincolnshire has Grammars and the average house price in Lincolnshire is £162,000 compared to a national average price of £250,000. Even within Lincolnshire the Grammars are not concentrated in the affluent areas.
Fair enough... The ones in Kent and Essex seem to be in the posher postcodes
I worked in a Kent grammar for many years. Their location is not significant since they generally take only the top 25/30% - who will come from a broad geographical area around the school - 10+ miles not unusual. In that way bright students from all areas get a look-in. your earlier point about house prices was of course correct. My own school expanded to take in south London applicants seeking to escape poor local London schools. If there were more Grammars the impact on house prices would reduce.
On tax credits, my general starting position is to take a fairly hard line, but it does feel like there are going to be a lot of anecdotal stories of people losing out which will strike a chord with people, and plenty from people who in theory support it until they or someone they know loses out.
On the one hand some thought the bedroom 'tax' would be a similarly damaging thing, but I feel like whatever the fairness or realities of the government proposals, there's already a much more successful effort at damaging the perception of the proposals on this one.
If this lady has four children then surely the father of the kids will be contributing to their upkeep... if not..why not..
Whatever her circumstances, I really hope that she wasn't put up by someone to either the QT audience question or the subsequential interviews. No doubt that certain sections of the media will be all over her - and not in a good way - as they do with anyone who puts their head above the parapet.
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
She may not be alone but that's true of any change ever. What are we supposed to?
Phase a transition with more sympathy for a group of people who are losing a lot of money over a short time frame.
I'm not opposed to the general principle behind the reform. I can see why it's being suggested. But by definition there are a group of people who need a decent lead-in time to adjust and who reasonably feel that their efforts to support themselves are being sabotaged by the government.
I'm pretty confident that there will be more to come on this in the Autumn Statement. The government is laying landmines for itself quite unnecessarily.
Agreed, but I don't think that this specific person is deserving of the taxpayer's help, her situation sounds an awful lot like the working tax credit scam a lot of "self employed" people run.
On tax credits, my general starting position is to take a fairly hard line, but it does feel like there are going to be a lot of anecdotal stories of people losing out which will strike a chord with people, and plenty from people who in theory support it until they or someone they know loses out.
Funnily enough, there are people I know who I'd be very happy to see lose out, but I have a feeling they won't.
If this lady has four children then surely the father of the kids will be contributing to their upkeep... if not..why not..
Whatever her circumstances, I really hope that she wasn't put up by someone to either the QT audience question or the subsequential interviews. No doubt that certain sections of the media will be all over her - and not in a good way - as they do with anyone who puts their head above the parapet.
If one is going to make such a scene then one has to have to have one's house in order and have an honest claim to the tax credits. If one is found to be cheating the system then the whole cause will lose credibility.
@HTScotPol: Delegate at #SNP15 fringe says Scotland is under-represented in size on BBC weather maps #nokidding
It's the perspective of the map as they scan over the country which gives more prominence to Southern England. Perhaps they should alternate between scanning over from the south and the north!
If this lady has four children then surely the father of the kids will be contributing to their upkeep... if not..why not..
Whatever her circumstances, I really hope that she wasn't put up by someone to either the QT audience question or the subsequential interviews. No doubt that certain sections of the media will be all over her - and not in a good way - as they do with anyone who puts their head above the parapet.
If one is going to make such a scene then one has to have to have one's house in order and have an honest claim to the tax credits. If one is found to be cheating the system then the whole cause will lose credibility.
If ones house is not in order then it suggests the reform could be necessary as the current system is abused.
The top 10% of people getting tax credits have an average household income of £42,000.
Yet a single person with no kids with an income of £15,000 gets no tax credits at all.
Tax credits aren't about low pay - they are about giving loads of money to people with kids.
If you earn £42,000 why on earth should you be getting any tax credits at all ON TOP of the Child Benefit you will also be receiving?
How about a bit of responsibility? If you earn £42,000, how about paying for your own kids? Why should someone earning £15,000 pay tax and NI to fund someone on £42,000 to have kids?
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
She may not be alone but that's true of any change ever. What are we supposed to?
Phase a transition with more sympathy for a group of people who are losing a lot of money over a short time frame.
I'm not opposed to the general principle behind the reform. I can see why it's being suggested. But by definition there are a group of people who need a decent lead-in time to adjust and who reasonably feel that their efforts to support themselves are being sabotaged by the government.
I'm pretty confident that there will be more to come on this in the Autumn Statement. The government is laying landmines for itself quite unnecessarily.
Totally agree. Phase it in. The whole thing is being merged with Universal Credit anyway in 2017 (loud hoots of laughter).
If this lady has four children then surely the father of the kids will be contributing to their upkeep... if not..why not..
Whatever her circumstances, I really hope that she wasn't put up by someone to either the QT audience question or the subsequential interviews. No doubt that certain sections of the media will be all over her - and not in a good way - as they do with anyone who puts their head above the parapet.
If one is going to make such a scene then one has to have to have one's house in order and have an honest claim to the tax credits. If one is found to be cheating the system then the whole cause will lose credibility.
Yes, quite. If she isn't careful she could end up as an unwitting poster child for all that needs changing with the tax credits system.
She should really shut up and lay low for a bit, at least until the media have moved on to something else. Unless of course there's more to the story and she turns out to be politically active, in which case she's in danger of shooting herself and her cause in the foot.
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
It shows what a complete mess the whole Tax Credits system is, when it's used to prop up failing 'businesses'. Clearly due some major reform.
It's a real eye opener for those of us taxpayers who don't claim, but are paying for them.
A friend of mine is a chartered accountant. She has 2 kids and used to work 3 days per week as an accountant. After her partner left her, she found out she was better off taking a job as a teaching assistant on around £7/hour and working exactly 16 hours per week, rather than staying on as an accountant for 3 days per week. She would have just about broken even if she did 4 days worth of accountancy work per week (allowing for cost of commuting).
Far more also needs to be said about the magnitude of tax credits. From memory the average tax credits payment is over £6,000.
Many will receive far more.
It sounds terrible that someone will lose £1,000. But what would the reaction be if people were told a claimant currently gets £10,000 and this will now fall to £9,000?
I suspect many would be flabbergasted at how the payments could be anywhere near so huge.
Especially when pretty poor people with no kids get nothing.
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
She may not be alone but that's true of any change ever. What are we supposed to?
Phase a transition with more sympathy for a group of people who are losing a lot of money over a short time frame.
I'm not opposed to the general principle behind the reform. I can see why it's being suggested. But by definition there are a group of people who need a decent lead-in time to adjust and who reasonably feel that their efforts to support themselves are being sabotaged by the government.
I'm pretty confident that there will be more to come on this in the Autumn Statement. The government is laying landmines for itself quite unnecessarily.
This client state was of course what should have won Lab the election in 2010. That it didn't illustrates that arguably sad individual stories aside, it is a popular move.
Running various tax credit scenarios shows that the people who will lose are the ones who will try to suppress their hours.
A minimum wage individual working 16 hours who does no extra work will lose by £445 a year. Every extra hour they work reduces their loss by £190. By the time they get up to 19 hours, they are in the green.
At 30 hours, they're nearly £2,000 extra to the good.
Far more also needs to be said about the magnitude of tax credits. From memory the average tax credits payment is over £6,000.
Many will receive far more.
It sounds terrible that someone will lose £1,000. But what would the reaction be if people were told a claimant currently gets £10,000 and this will now fall to £9,000?
I suspect many would be flabbergasted at how the payments could be anywhere near so huge.
Especially when pretty poor people with no kids get nothing.
The Gov'ts changes to the minimum wage will help alot of people I know for sure. And everyone I know who has kids can afford them,
If this lady has four children then surely the father of the kids will be contributing to their upkeep... if not..why not..
Whatever her circumstances, I really hope that she wasn't put up by someone to either the QT audience question or the subsequential interviews. No doubt that certain sections of the media will be all over her - and not in a good way - as they do with anyone who puts their head above the parapet.
If one is going to make such a scene then one has to have to have one's house in order and have an honest claim to the tax credits. If one is found to be cheating the system then the whole cause will lose credibility.
If ones house is not in order then it suggests the reform could be necessary as the current system is abused.
Especially if she is not the sharpest nail file in the box. That a system should have sprung up which is evidently so opaque and complicated is in itself a good reason to abolish it.*
Running various tax credit scenarios shows that the people who will lose are the ones who will try to suppress their hours.
A minimum wage individual working 16 hours who does no extra work will lose by £445 a year. Every extra hour they work reduces their loss by £190. By the time they get up to 19 hours, they are in the green.
At 30 hours, they're nearly £2,000 extra to the good.
If you focus on the particular individual laying into tax credits, you're mugs. If she's a plant and she really is failing as a nail bar owner, she ought to go into acting - her emotions looked 100% genuine to me and if she was faking them, she ought to be on the stage.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
It shows what a complete mess the whole Tax Credits system is, when it's used to prop up failing 'businesses'. Clearly due some major reform.
It's a real eye opener for those of us taxpayers who don't claim, but are paying for them.
A friend of mine is a chartered accountant. She has 2 kids and used to work 3 days per week as an accountant. After her partner left her, she found out she was better off taking a job as a teaching assistant on around £7/hour and working exactly 16 hours per week, rather than staying on as an accountant for 3 days per week. She would have just about broken even if she did 4 days worth of accountancy work per week (allowing for cost of commuting).
That's shocking. So here we have someone who spent years training for a profession, to whom it makes financial sense to abandon in favour of an almost unskilled job (for a middle-class mother). I would guess she could earn something like £30-40k as 0.6 of an accountant. Talk about perverse incentives, and the taxpayer is on the line for many millions more people in the same boat.
The 16 hours rules in particular are very restricting on how people can work, the abolishment of that alone under UC will make a huge difference to the flexibility of the workforce, along with the once-thought-impossible task of real time earnings reporting to DWP.
How predictable - a member of the public dares the question the Tories and so must be destroyed by any means necessary. This sort of behaviour is exactly the sort of thing the Tories and their propaganda organs shouldn't be doing if they aren't intending on one of the fastest falls from grace in political history.
Running various tax credit scenarios shows that the people who will lose are the ones who will try to suppress their hours.
A minimum wage individual working 16 hours who does no extra work will lose by £445 a year. Every extra hour they work reduces their loss by £190. By the time they get up to 19 hours, they are in the green.
At 30 hours, they're nearly £2,000 extra to the good.
3 hours a week...
I think the pivot is 10 hours per month extra. An extra 18 hours per month leaves the person about £100 better off while the previous system would have left them worse off. I think the previous pivot point required people to take on an extra 8 hours per week to be better off compared to tax credit loss.
How predictable - a member of the public dares the question the Tories and so must be destroyed by any means necessary. This sort of behaviour is exactly the sort of thing the Tories and their propaganda organs shouldn't be doing if they aren't intending on one of the fastest falls from grace in political history.
Do you think the system of taxing at source and then giving the money back later, and to such a large extent, is a sensible one?
How predictable - a member of the public dares the question the Tories and so must be destroyed by any means necessary. This sort of behaviour is exactly the sort of thing the Tories and their propaganda organs shouldn't be doing if they aren't intending on one of the fastest falls from grace in political history.
They shouldn't, perhaps - but let no one get on their high horse that attacking a messenger, fairly or not, is unusual in politics. People on the internet might be able to claim a high ground on this, some anyway, but political parties sure as sh*t cannot when it comes to such behaviour.
How predictable - a member of the public dares the question the Tories and so must be destroyed by any means necessary. This sort of behaviour is exactly the sort of thing the Tories and their propaganda organs shouldn't be doing if they aren't intending on one of the fastest falls from grace in political history.
No, it's the sound of the wheels falling off this tax-credits campaign. People like you don't want individual cases investigated because they stink of benefit abuse.
I don't actually back the tax credit system as it offers such a broad subsidy to big business. A basic citizen's income is the only sensible solution in a world of ever increasing automation, and will be arrived on eventually. But cutting it so radically when people are relying on it is a big mistake.
How predictable - a member of the public dares the question the Tories and so must be destroyed by any means necessary. This sort of behaviour is exactly the sort of thing the Tories and their propaganda organs shouldn't be doing if they aren't intending on one of the fastest falls from grace in political history.
Once this unwinds, the biggest danger for the Tories is that they will be accused of being soft.
WTF? Since when has Question Time been an item on the Six O'clock News?
Since the QT story became newsworthy ?
Convenient that they tracked her down and did an interview with her. I hope she hasn't got any skeletons in the closet as she's fair game now.
Meanwhile, the ongoing disgrace that is the Tom Watson and the Met Police gets barely a mention.
Elementary my dear Watson .... the Beeb will have had her details when she applied for QT.
Tom Watson and the Met not mentioned - They've been barely out of the news for weeks now !! .... Where are you getting your appreciation of current affairs ?? - The Pyongyang Barbers Gazette !!
Comments
Anti Murdoch spin
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34551860
There is more trouble coming down the road. Many (most?) people do not realise that tax credits will be rolled into the emerging Universal Credit system. I'm sure that will go swimmingly.
Trying to avoid the political conversations at work, as the people who thought it was a good idea not to vote are now going on about how David Cameron is the best of a bad bunch anyway
I also think that Watson, once he had properly referred the matter to the police, had no business using Parliamentary privilege to make emotive statements about an individual while the investigation was still continuing. The risk was exactly that set out in the report - that the police would feel unable to say that the investigation had concluded with no action to be taken because of their fear of the media storm they would be involved in. Watson - as an MP - should have been, at the very least, a bit more thoughtful about ensuring that he did not contribute to such a media storm and thereby cause unfairness to an individual.
I think it's a smart move for her personally ^_~
Gov't needs to look into th interaction of small/personal businesses and tax credits/other benefits now for sure though.
Of course, like so many other advocates of mass immigration, Simon Schama can probably live pretty much where he wants. And if the area around him goes somewhat downhill because the neighbours all start to come from the rougher corners of Eritrea then Simon Schama can move. And he will probably move to a very nice area. But of course not everybody has that choice. And one thing we can all be certain of is that Simon Schama will probably never choose to live in Bradford, Malmo or any of the (dare I say it) ‘suburbs’ outside Paris. Yet all the time he will urge other peoples’ neighbourhoods to more closely resemble those great success stories, and look down at people from an ever-loftier height when they dare to object."
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/simon-schamas-use-of-the-word-suburban-on-question-time-was-very-revealing/
As an aside why should the taxpayer be subsidising her business?
At best, it could work more or less as you say, at worst it could be highly incendiary, with stroppy WWC Mums fronting down busses of middle-class of kids in almost Northern Ireland style scenes. So it would have to be done, if at all, with the kind of almost PC sensitivity and engagement with the community that kippers don't yet have much political experience of handling.
For a UKIP policy to engage with the WWC in such a way might ultimately be, as Sir Humphrey would say, courageous. If you or your fellows get into a position to enact this somewhere, I wish them luck and beg them care.
She will not be alone in how she views these changes.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/16/david-cameron-spokesman-respond-question-time-tax-credits-complaint
And The Telegraph.
'"I came off benefits, I started a new business - Chelle's designer nails. I work as hard as I can and if I'm lucky make £150 a week.
"The reason my business doesn't make any profit is everything goes back into it with products and advertising. I'm trying to keep people coming.
"When they cut tax credits my business goes to the floor and I lose my company. All those people that have the money to have treats like doing their nails won't be able to any more."'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11935413/Ex-Tory-voter-breaks-down-on-Question-Time-over-tax-credit-cuts.html
File under daft.
On the one hand some thought the bedroom 'tax' would be a similarly damaging thing, but I feel like whatever the fairness or realities of the government proposals, there's already a much more successful effort at damaging the perception of the proposals on this one.
It's a real eye opener for those of us taxpayers who don't claim, but are paying for them.
Either she is very bad a doing business or it's a self-employment tax credits scam. My guess is the latter. I would very much like HMRC to ask for copies of all customer receipts for the last year or so, see how many "clients" she actually has.
With this and the tax - looks like she's been taking lessons off of Amazon.com !
She must be building up some decent business equity with all her investment. All in those fixed asset nail files.
Are they eligible for business relief too xD ?
@HTScotPol: Complaint at BBC fringe event at #SNP15 about poor coverage of Andy Murray
It's not as bad as the tax credit issue, but if you're interested in immense suffering, do read my recent piece on the aftermath of the Battle of Kleidion:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-battle-of-kleidion.html
I'll put up a short piece about Basil II's odd childhood at the weekend (I thought I'd written such a piece ages ago).
The question isn't 'will there be losers?', but 'is it an improvement to the fairness and affordability of the welfare system?' The government has some electoral space and a mandate to make changes. The previous system was pretty bonkers however you look at it, as well as horrendously expensive and complicated to administer. Osborne has done a lot to mitigate the effects of the changes, in particular with the large increase to the minimum wage, tax reductions and help with child care. That will still leave some losers, especially on a static analysis.
We've had a good example of why a static analysis might not be the whole story with the nail-bar lady. Like other people whose businesses don't make any money, she might need to change what she does. It doesn't seem to me that there is an overriding public interest in subsidising her business in exactly the form it currently has.
And of course as a self employed person her income rests on her abilities, which if they sadly prove inadequate still leaves her an opportunity to find employment elsewhere. There have been no shortages of job opportunities over the last 5 years.
I suspect it might.
If she is benefiting because of what is essentially tax fraud and benefit fraud because she's under-declaring her income on what is a cash in hand business then it is very relevant. That is the problem with the system at the moment that is so easy to abuse. It is far cleaner, simpler and more honest to have a system of higher wages, lower benefits and lower taxes.
As for crying that less people may want to have their nails done regularly if child tax credits are cut then priorities really need to be straightened out! Child benefits are not supposed to be there to get your nails done.
I'm not opposed to the general principle behind the reform. I can see why it's being suggested. But by definition there are a group of people who need a decent lead-in time to adjust and who reasonably feel that their efforts to support themselves are being sabotaged by the government.
I'm pretty confident that there will be more to come on this in the Autumn Statement. The government is laying landmines for itself quite unnecessarily.
your earlier point about house prices was of course correct. My own school expanded to take in south London applicants seeking to escape poor local London schools. If there were more Grammars the impact on house prices would reduce.
Yet a single person with no kids with an income of £15,000 gets no tax credits at all.
Tax credits aren't about low pay - they are about giving loads of money to people with kids.
If you earn £42,000 why on earth should you be getting any tax credits at all ON TOP of the Child Benefit you will also be receiving?
How about a bit of responsibility? If you earn £42,000, how about paying for your own kids? Why should someone earning £15,000 pay tax and NI to fund someone on £42,000 to have kids?
Of course, they show it flat and you can find the forecast online and on the red button.
She should really shut up and lay low for a bit, at least until the media have moved on to something else. Unless of course there's more to the story and she turns out to be politically active, in which case she's in danger of shooting herself and her cause in the foot.
@HTScotPol: Glasgow Cllr Phil Greene suggests at #SNP15 BBC fringe that corporation's half-truths and propaganda worse than that of Goebbels
Many will receive far more.
It sounds terrible that someone will lose £1,000. But what would the reaction be if people were told a claimant currently gets £10,000 and this will now fall to £9,000?
I suspect many would be flabbergasted at how the payments could be anywhere near so huge.
Especially when pretty poor people with no kids get nothing.
A minimum wage individual working 16 hours who does no extra work will lose by £445 a year. Every extra hour they work reduces their loss by £190. By the time they get up to 19 hours, they are in the green.
At 30 hours, they're nearly £2,000 extra to the good.
* of course it is far from being abolished.
The 16 hours rules in particular are very restricting on how people can work, the abolishment of that alone under UC will make a huge difference to the flexibility of the workforce, along with the once-thought-impossible task of real time earnings reporting to DWP.
Meanwhile, the ongoing disgrace that is the Tom Watson and the Met Police gets barely a mention.
If this is the case, people should end up in jail.
Tom Watson and the Met not mentioned - They've been barely out of the news for weeks now !! .... Where are you getting your appreciation of current affairs ?? - The Pyongyang Barbers Gazette !!