Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
It's not really a criticism. Napoleon expected his marshals to be lucky.
Gordon Brown bottling the election in 2007; Labour choosing Ed Milliband, and then Jeremy Corbyn, and the Conservatives gaining votes where they needed to, and losing votes where they needed to, in May, were fantastic pieces of luck.
Clegg, on the other hand, tried to do the right thing, and saw his party destroyed.
You don't think that was down to the Tory party targeting voters exceptionally well with the right messages?
I think it was a hand well played.
The Lib Dems were set up to be destroyed. The Conservatives didn't need to take very many votes from the party to wipe them out, given that most of their MPs were defending smallish majorities, built up over decades of anti-Conservative tactical voting. Enough left wing voters felt betrayed to switch back to Labour.
The targeting was of course, excellent. Lynton Crosby knew exactly which voters to go after in which constituencies. The luck came as follows, however:-
1. The rise of the SNP. They are disliked South of the Border, and vote Labour/ get SNP ensured right of centre voters rallied to the Conservatives.
2. The rise of UKIP was unforeseen. UKIP ended up taking votes of the Conservatives (rather than their going to Labour) in mid-term. But, a lot of those voters returned to the Conservatives in May. At the same, Labour-UKIP defectors stayed with UKIP.
'A senior Conservative told the Standard ministers were questioning if it was worth halting debates for a party that has “just eight MPs”.
How the hell does a party with just 8 MP's have over 100 representatives in the HoL ?
More to the point - how does a party that gets four million votes have just eight MPs?
Well they had a chance to have a referendum on PR in the last Parliament but they came up with such a rubbish proposal that it was rejected. If some proper PR had been put before us, I might well have voted for it - as might others - but we are where we are. The Lib Dems are now largely irrelevant as a political force and - really - it ill behoves them to use the Lords to push for a policy against the wishes of the elected chamber.
Parties that between them won many more votes in the GE than the Tories are opposed to the tax credit cuts.
EDIT - Actually, that may not be true. UKIP is also in favour of reducing the incomes of the working poor, I believe.
Haha
Hardly
If UKIPs policy was in place, the working poor would be earning a lot more than they are currently. Tax credits are just small kickback for the money they lose through mass immigration of cheap labour
If UKIP's policy was in place we would all be paying much higher prices for many basic goods and services. Whether salary increases would compensate for that is not clear.
However, it is the case that UKIP's only MP did vote with the government and in favour of reducing the incomes of many low paid workers/
''More to the point - how does a party that gets four million votes have just eight MPs?''
Or in the case of UKIP, one MP.
Lib Dems didn't get anywhere near 4m votes did they?
UKIP got less than 4m votes but more votes than LD & SNP combined
Yep - my mistake.
FPTP in all its glory. The SNP got 50% of the vote in Scotland and over 90% of the seats there. The LDs got 8% of the national vote, but less than 2% of seats in the Commons, while UKIP and its voters got royally screwed.
'A senior Conservative told the Standard ministers were questioning if it was worth halting debates for a party that has “just eight MPs”.
How the hell does a party with just 8 MP's have over 100 representatives in the HoL ?
More to the point - how does a party that gets four million votes have just eight MPs?
Well they had a chance to have a referendum on PR in the last Parliament but they came up with such a rubbish proposal that it was rejected. If some proper PR had been put before us, I might well have voted for it - as might others - but we are where we are. The Lib Dems are now largely irrelevant as a political force and - really - it ill behoves them to use the Lords to push for a policy against the wishes of the elected chamber.
Parties that between them won many more votes in the GE than the Tories are opposed to the tax credit cuts.
EDIT - Actually, that may not be true. UKIP is also in favour of reducing the incomes of the working poor, I believe.
Haha
Hardly
If UKIPs policy was in place, the working poor would be earning a lot more than they are currently. Tax credits are just small kickback for the money they lose through mass immigration of cheap labour
If UKIP's policy was in place we would all be paying much higher prices for many basic goods and services. Whether salary increases would compensate for that is not clear.
However, it is the case that UKIP's only MP did vote with the government and in favour of reducing the incomes of many low paid workers/
Basic services that many of the lower paid in society provide... So yes their wages would go up
Better to give people the chance to earn a decent wage rather than depress it and the state dole it back as it sees fit, in my book
'A senior Conservative told the Standard ministers were questioning if it was worth halting debates for a party that has “just eight MPs”.
How the hell does a party with just 8 MP's have over 100 representatives in the HoL ?
More to the point - how does a party that gets four million votes have just eight MPs?
Well they had a chance to have a referendum on PR in the last Parliament but they came up with such a rubbish proposal that it was rejected. If some proper PR had been put before us, I might well have voted for it - as might others - but we are where we are. The Lib Dems are now largely irrelevant as a political force and - really - it ill behoves them to use the Lords to push for a policy against the wishes of the elected chamber.
Parties that between them won many more votes in the GE than the Tories are opposed to the tax credit cuts.
EDIT - Actually, that may not be true. UKIP is also in favour of reducing the incomes of the working poor, I believe.
Haha
Hardly
If UKIPs policy was in place, the working poor would be earning a lot more than they are currently. Tax credits are just small kickback for the money they lose through mass immigration of cheap labour
If UKIP's policy was in place we would all be paying much higher prices for many basic goods and services. Whether salary increases would compensate for that is not clear.
However, it is the case that UKIP's only MP did vote with the government and in favour of reducing the incomes of many low paid workers/
Basic services that many of the lower paid in society provide... So yes their wages would go up
Better to give people the chance to earn a decent wage rather than depress it and the state dole it back as it sees fit, in my book
If wages go up by less than the increased costs of goods and services then that does not really do much good to those on low incomes. It also causes significant harm to those who do not work - ie, pensioners, one of UKIP's principal sources of votes.
Better to ensure that people are earning a decent wage and then reduce tax credits, in my book. Penalising hard working people living on the breadline for not having well paid jobs is not an attractive look.
More people think Labour should dump Jeremy Corbyn as leader than think they should keep him, an exclusive poll reveals today.
Some 42 per cent told Ipsos MORI that the party should change leader before the 2020 general election — including 30 per cent who “strongly” felt Mr Corbyn should be tossed overboard.
Only 31 per cent felt he should stay to fight the 2020 election, including 19 per cent who felt it strongly.
@jameskirkup If Cameron wants to bring in a fully elected Lords I will co-sponsor the bill. @asabenn
That's a bizarre non-sequitur. No-one has ever suggested that an elected House of Lords should have the power to overrule the Commons on financial bills, have they?
'A senior Conservative told the Standard ministers were questioning if it was worth halting debates for a party that has “just eight MPs”.
How the hell does a party with just 8 MP's have over 100 representatives in the HoL ?
More to the point - how does a party that gets four million votes have just eight MPs?
Parties that between them won many more votes in the GE than the Tories are opposed to the tax credit cuts.
EDIT - Actually, that may not be true. UKIP is also in favour of reducing the incomes of the working poor, I believe.
Haha
Hardly
If UKIPs policy was in place, the working poor would be earning a lot more than they are currently. Tax credits are just small kickback for the money they lose through mass immigration of cheap labour
If UKIP's policy was in place we would all be paying much higher prices for many basic goods and services. Whether salary increases would compensate for that is not clear.
However, it is the case that UKIP's only MP did vote with the government and in favour of reducing the incomes of many low paid workers/
Basic services that many of the lower paid in society provide... So yes their wages would go up
Better to give people the chance to earn a decent wage rather than depress it and the state dole it back as it sees fit, in my book
If wages go up by less than the increased costs of goods and services then that does not really do much good to those on low incomes. It also causes significant harm to those who do not work - ie, pensioners, one of UKIP's principal sources of votes.
Better to ensure that people are earning a decent wage and then reduce tax credits, in my book. Penalising hard working people living on the breadline for not having well paid jobs is not an attractive look.
Mass immigration of cheap labour does more than anything else to harm the living standards of the lowest paid. Tax gimmicks, from the man who encouraged that mass immigration, as some kind of compensation is an insult that leaves a bad taste in the mouth
In any case, the people on the breadline have been taken out of the tax threshold since Labour left govt
That's a bizarre non-sequitur. No-one has ever suggested that an elected House of Lords should have the power to overrule the Commons on financial bills, have they?
@jameskirkup If Cameron wants to bring in a fully elected Lords I will co-sponsor the bill. @asabenn
Do we need an upper house ?
Another big Gov't saving for Goerge to find methinks
Unlike the Monarchy, no tourist ever cared that we have a HoL.
I feel my next post germinating.
The court part should probably be kept - though isn't this seperate now (Supreme court). It should also have primacy over Brussels - but that's another matter ;p
@isam People on the lowest wages are not necessarily those on the breadline. It depends on where they live and how many dependents they have.
Immigration may mean the lowest paid do not earn as much, but that is not the same as lowering their living standards. Cheap labour may well mean lower prices, for example. And that helps those on low incomes, as well as those with no job, such as pensioners.
UKIP is not opposed to a tax gimmick. It is opposed to a benefit that is demonstrably beneficial to many low income families. It supports removing that benefit before ensuring that such families are able to compensate for the loss in other ways.
More people think Labour should dump Jeremy Corbyn as leader than think they should keep him, an exclusive poll reveals today.
Some 42 per cent told Ipsos MORI that the party should change leader before the 2020 general election — including 30 per cent who “strongly” felt Mr Corbyn should be tossed overboard.
Only 31 per cent felt he should stay to fight the 2020 election, including 19 per cent who felt it strongly.
Quite a good poll for Corbyn, actually - better than Miliband on that specific question, only -2 net satisfaction, lots of positive support and 5 points satisfaction ahead of Labour, who in turn are just 4 points behind the Tories. We'll take that to be getting on with.
The sooner the government re-brands tax credits as something that more accurately represents what they are, the sooner the debate will engage with reality.
Part Time Workers Supplementary Benefit Child Benefit Extra Bonus Jobseekers Allowance Supplementary Benefit.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
It's not really a criticism. Napoleon expected his marshals to be lucky.
Gordon Brown bottling the election in 2007; Labour choosing Ed Milliband, and then Jeremy Corbyn, and the Conservatives gaining votes where they needed to, and losing votes where they needed to, in May, were fantastic pieces of luck.
Clegg, on the other hand, tried to do the right thing, and saw his party destroyed.
You don't think that was down to the Tory party targeting voters exceptionally well with the right messages?
I think it was a hand well played.
The Lib Dems were set up to be destroyed. The Conservatives didn't need to take very many votes from the party to wipe them out, given that most of their MPs were defending smallish majorities, built up over decades of anti-Conservative tactical voting. Enough left wing voters felt betrayed to switch back to Labour.
The targeting was of course, excellent. Lynton Crosby knew exactly which voters to go after in which constituencies. The luck came as follows, however:-
1. The rise of the SNP. They are disliked South of the Border, and vote Labour/ get SNP ensured right of centre voters rallied to the Conservatives.
2. The rise of UKIP was unforeseen. UKIP ended up taking votes of the Conservatives (rather than their going to Labour) in mid-term. But, a lot of those voters returned to the Conservatives in May. At the same, Labour-UKIP defectors stayed with UKIP.
3. Ed Milliband was simply not Prime Ministerial.
Of course, if that's true, it means the Conservative right-flank is still vulnerable.
They will be relying on frightening the horses again in GE2020 to maintain power.
More people think Labour should dump Jeremy Corbyn as leader than think they should keep him, an exclusive poll reveals today.
Some 42 per cent told Ipsos MORI that the party should change leader before the 2020 general election — including 30 per cent who “strongly” felt Mr Corbyn should be tossed overboard.
Only 31 per cent felt he should stay to fight the 2020 election, including 19 per cent who felt it strongly.
Quite a good poll for Corbyn, actually - better than Miliband on that specific question, only -2 net satisfaction, lots of positive support and 5 points satisfaction ahead of Labour, who in turn are just 4 points behind the Tories. We'll take that to be getting on with.
That sounds a bit like Doncaster Rovers Supporters Club c.1996, trying to cheer themselves up.
@isam People on the lowest wages are not necessarily those on the breadline. It depends on where they live and how many dependents they have.
Immigration may mean the lowest paid do not earn as much, but that is not the same as lowering their living standards. Cheap labour may well mean lower prices, for example. And that helps those on low incomes, as well as those with no job, such as pensioners.
UKIP is not opposed to a tax gimmick. It is opposed to a benefit that is demonstrably beneficial to many low income families. It supports removing that benefit before ensuring that such families are able to compensate for the loss in other ways.
Each to their own.
Immigration lowers the standard of living in a lot more than monetary terms for those affected, but I can't be bothered going over all that again. It would be like revisiting arguments with tim.
The way I see it, the last labour government made the working class ill and now want to keep them hooked on medicine they have the contract to provide, rather than curing them.
@isam People on the lowest wages are not necessarily those on the breadline. It depends on where they live and how many dependents they have.
Immigration may mean the lowest paid do not earn as much, but that is not the same as lowering their living standards. Cheap labour may well mean lower prices, for example. And that helps those on low incomes, as well as those with no job, such as pensioners.
UKIP is not opposed to a tax gimmick. It is opposed to a benefit that is demonstrably beneficial to many low income families. It supports removing that benefit before ensuring that such families are able to compensate for the loss in other ways.
Each to their own.
Immigration lowers the standard of living in a lot more than monetary terms for those affected, but I can't be bothered going over all that again. It would be like revisiting arguments with tim.
The way I see it, the last labour government made the working class ill and now want to keep them hooked on medicine they have the contract to provide, rather than curing them.
The way I see it, UKIP claims to care about the working class, but then supports for measures that will make many working class people poorer.
There'll be one group of voters quite happy with the changes to the tax credit system.
Whisper it quietly, but people on low wages without, or with only perhaps a single child won't be displeased.
Indeed.
There are a large number of working people without children who never receive a penny in tax credits yet they are on low pay. These people are simply getting a payrise.
More people think Labour should dump Jeremy Corbyn as leader than think they should keep him, an exclusive poll reveals today.
Some 42 per cent told Ipsos MORI that the party should change leader before the 2020 general election — including 30 per cent who “strongly” felt Mr Corbyn should be tossed overboard.
Only 31 per cent felt he should stay to fight the 2020 election, including 19 per cent who felt it strongly.
Quite a good poll for Corbyn, actually - better than Miliband on that specific question, only -2 net satisfaction, lots of positive support and 5 points satisfaction ahead of Labour, who in turn are just 4 points behind the Tories. We'll take that to be getting on with.
Forget that Labour are down two vs a government implementing a very public measure which is getting a lot of negative airtime.
The way I see it, UKIP claims to care about the working class, but then supports for measures that will make many working class people poorer.
You keep forgetting to add 'and many other low-paid, working-class people better off'. I'm sure this omission is entirely accidental and you'll be keen to put the record straight.
There'll be one group of voters quite happy with the changes to the tax credit system.
Whisper it quietly, but people on low wages without, or with only perhaps a single child won't be displeased.
Indeed.
There are a large number of working people without children who never receive a penny in tax credits yet they are on low pay. These people are simply getting a payrise.
People who lose out will always be more politically motivated than people who gain.
It seems sensible to phase in the reforms so that the pain of the losers is mitigated.
@isam People on the lowest wages are not necessarily those on the breadline. It depends on where they live and how many dependents they have.
Immigration may mean the lowest paid do not earn as much, but that is not the same as lowering their living standards. Cheap labour may well mean lower prices, for example. And that helps those on low incomes, as well as those with no job, such as pensioners.
UKIP is not opposed to a tax gimmick. It is opposed to a benefit that is demonstrably beneficial to many low income families. It supports removing that benefit before ensuring that such families are able to compensate for the loss in other ways.
Each to their own.
Immigration lowers the standard of living in a lot more than monetary terms for those affected, but I can't be bothered going over all that again. It would be like revisiting arguments with tim.
The way I see it, the last labour government made the working class ill and now want to keep them hooked on medicine they have the contract to provide, rather than curing them.
I don't know what the mainstream parties are playing at.
Immigration is by a country mile the number one issue of most people in this country, concern about it are at their highest ever level and the consequences of it, both socially and politically, are clearly visible both domestically and on the continent.
Yet it's quite clear the Conservatives won't take any additional measures to bring it under control than those they have already implemented, and they are starting to doubt the wisdom even of those. In addition, the shibboleths of the Left are starting to creep into their everyday conversation on the subject.
Do they have a deathwish? Or do they just hope it will go away?
@isam People on the lowest wages are not necessarily those on the breadline. It depends on where they live and how many dependents they have.
Immigration may mean the lowest paid do not earn as much, but that is not the same as lowering their living standards. Cheap labour may well mean lower prices, for example. And that helps those on low incomes, as well as those with no job, such as pensioners.
UKIP is not opposed to a tax gimmick. It is opposed to a benefit that is demonstrably beneficial to many low income families. It supports removing that benefit before ensuring that such families are able to compensate for the loss in other ways.
Each to their own.
Immigration lowers the standard of living in a lot more than monetary terms for those affected, but I can't be bothered going over all that again. It would be like revisiting arguments with tim.
The way I see it, the last labour government made the working class ill and now want to keep them hooked on medicine they have the contract to provide, rather than curing them.
The way I see it, UKIP claims to care about the working class, but then supports for measures that will make many working class people poorer.
It's central policy would be the best thing that has ever happened to the British working class. Keeping them attached to the state drip is cruel
But I don't doubt you personally have the best interests of the poorest at heart... I do too, but we disagree on the best means to achieve it
If in the worst case Cameron has to appoint 200 new Lords, would he be able to successfully blame the Liberal Democrats for this???
80-90 extra Tory peers would do it, which would bring the chamber up to about 900 peers. He'd then have a political majority - although 100 short of an actual one - but that'd probably be fine. It'd just rely on crossbenchers not to be party political to maintain balanced considered votes.
@isam People on the lowest wages are not necessarily those on the breadline. It depends on where they live and how many dependents they have.
Immigration may mean the lowest paid do not earn as much, but that is not the same as lowering their living standards. Cheap labour may well mean lower prices, for example. And that helps those on low incomes, as well as those with no job, such as pensioners.
UKIP is not opposed to a tax gimmick. It is opposed to a benefit that is demonstrably beneficial to many low income families. It supports removing that benefit before ensuring that such families are able to compensate for the loss in other ways.
Each to their own.
Immigration lowers the standard of living in a lot more than monetary terms for those affected, but I can't be bothered going over all that again. It would be like revisiting arguments with tim.
The way I see it, the last labour government made the working class ill and now want to keep them hooked on medicine they have the contract to provide, rather than curing them.
I don't know what the mainstream parties are playing at.
Immigration is by a country mile the number one issue of most people in this country, concern about it are at their highest ever level and the consequences of it, both socially and politically, are clearly visible both domestically and on the continent.
Yet it's quite clear the Conservatives won't take any additional measures to bring it under control than those they have already implemented, and they are starting to doubt the wisdom even of those. In addition, the shibboleths of the Left are starting to creep into their everyday conversation on the subject.
Do they have a deathwish? Or do they just hope it will go away?
We can't control immigration while we remain in the EU.
If in the worst case Cameron has to appoint 200 new Lords, would he be able to successfully blame the Liberal Democrats for this???
80-90 extra Tory peers would do it, which would bring the chamber up to about 900 peers. He'd then have a political majority - although 100 short of an actual one - but that'd probably be fine. It'd just rely on crossbenchers not to be party political to maintain balanced considered votes.
Which seems fair.
If he does it, then that would be good. That would be the death knell of the HoL. What stops a future Labour government appointing 500 to abolish / change the HoL as Tony Benn once said ?
@isam People on the lowest wages are not necessarily those on the breadline. It depends on where they live and how many dependents they have.
Immigration may mean the lowest paid do not earn as much, but that is not the same as lowering their living standards. Cheap labour may well mean lower prices, for example. And that helps those on low incomes, as well as those with no job, such as pensioners.
UKIP is not opposed to a tax gimmick. It is opposed to a benefit that is demonstrably beneficial to many low income families. It supports removing that benefit before ensuring that such families are able to compensate for the loss in other ways.
Each to their own.
Immigration lowers the standard of living in a lot more than monetary terms for those affected, but I can't be bothered going over all that again. It would be like revisiting arguments with tim.
The way I see it, the last labour government made the working class ill and now want to keep them hooked on medicine they have the contract to provide, rather than curing them.
The way I see it, UKIP claims to care about the working class, but then supports for measures that will make many working class people poorer.
It's central policy would be the best thing that has ever happened to the British working class. Keeping them attached to the state drip is cruel
But I don't doubt you personally have the best interests of the poorest at heart... I do too, but we disagree on the best means to achieve it
Southam, you know the drill. To make the poor work harder, you have to make them poorer. To make the rich work harder you have to give them more incentives.
The fact that for many working people with the 48% taper in the withdrawl of Working Tax Credit , their effective marginal tax rate will be as high as 68% plus National Insurance seems to have not been mentioned much.
GOP leadership candidates have got themselves the wrong side of the burgeoning cannabis industry in the USA and the wrong side of public opinion on the prohibition debate,even in the "red states" and traditional libertarian GOP supporters in California.Look at the figures,cannabis is very big business in the states.One of the reasons the Dems will win.
@isam People on the lowest wages are not necessarily those on the breadline. It depends on where they live and how many dependents they have.
Immigration may mean the lowest paid do not earn as much, but that is not the same as lowering their living standards. Cheap labour may well mean lower prices, for example. And that helps those on low incomes, as well as those with no job, such as pensioners.
UKIP is not opposed to a tax gimmick. It is opposed to a benefit that is demonstrably beneficial to many low income families. It supports removing that benefit before ensuring that such families are able to compensate for the loss in other ways.
Each to their own.
Immigration lowers the standard of living in a lot more than monetary terms for those affected, but I can't be bothered going over all that again. It would be like revisiting arguments with tim.
The way I see it, the last labour government made the working class ill and now want to keep them hooked on medicine they have the contract to provide, rather than curing them.
I don't know what the mainstream parties are playing at.
Immigration is by a country mile the number one issue of most people in this country, concern about it are at their highest ever level and the consequences of it, both socially and politically, are clearly visible both domestically and on the continent.
Yet it's quite clear the Conservatives won't take any additional measures to bring it under control than those they have already implemented, and they are starting to doubt the wisdom even of those. In addition, the shibboleths of the Left are starting to creep into their everyday conversation on the subject.
Do they have a deathwish? Or do they just hope it will go away?
We can't control immigration while we remain in the EU.
(1) Reintroduce primary purpose (2) Make spousal visas subject to points - end automatic settlement rights (3) Non-EU work visas to be set to a max of 4 years (4) No right to bring your whole family over - reform human rights (5) Students should have to leave the UK to apply for a new permit to work if they wish to continue here once graduating (see 3) (6) Thresholds to be placed on EEC/EFTA free movement, above which checks and restrictions kick in (7) strengthen removals and deportation teams
If in the worst case Cameron has to appoint 200 new Lords, would he be able to successfully blame the Liberal Democrats for this???
80-90 extra Tory peers would do it, which would bring the chamber up to about 900 peers. He'd then have a political majority - although 100 short of an actual one - but that'd probably be fine. It'd just rely on crossbenchers not to be party political to maintain balanced considered votes.
Which seems fair.
If he does it, then that would be good. That would be the death knell of the HoL. What stops a future Labour government appointing 500 to abolish / change the HoL as Tony Benn once said ?
GOP leadership candidates have got themselves the wrong side of the burgeoning cannabis industry in the USA and the wrong side of public opinion on the prohibition debate,even in the "red states" and traditional libertarian GOP supporters in California.Look at the figures,cannabis is very big business in the states.One of the reasons the Dems will win.
Quite a good poll for Corbyn, actually - better than Miliband on that specific question [should he be dumped before the next GE]
That's not comparing like-with-like. The Miliband question relates to June 2014, the Corbyn question to his honeymoon period.
But you know that, of course!
Yes :-). But equally it's difficult to argue that Corbyn has actually had a honeymoon - the media coverage has been roughly comparable not just to Alan Clark taking his girlfriend along on honeymoon as well (as he apparently did), but taking his mother-in-law with rolling pin as well.
Objectively I think the facts are clear - compared with most new opposition leaders, unusually large chunks of people have a strong view about Corbyn, both positive and negative. It doesn't matter if people who never vote Labour don't like him, think he should be replaced, etc. It's worrying if floating voters feel that way. But the 37% positive rating is quite resilient considering the universal media battering. I'd have expected it to be lower, and I think most Tories privately would too.
Quite a good poll for Corbyn, actually - better than Miliband on that specific question [should he be dumped before the next GE]
That's not comparing like-with-like. The Miliband question relates to June 2014, the Corbyn question to his honeymoon period.
But you know that, of course!
Yes :-). But equally it's difficult to argue that Corbyn has actually had a honeymoon - the media coverage has been roughly comparable not just to Alan Clark taking his girlfriend along on honeymoon as well (as he apparently did), but taking his mother-in-law with rolling pin as well.
Objectively I think the facts are clear - compared with most new opposition leaders, unusually large chunks of people have a strong view about Corbyn, both positive and negative. It doesn't matter if people who never vote Labour don't like him, think he should be replaced, etc. It's worrying if floating voters feel that way. But the 37% positive rating is quite resilient considering the universal media battering. I'd have expected it to be lower, and I think most Tories privately would too.
Lower rating than Nasty Nige... Then again, who hasn't?
Quite a good poll for Corbyn, actually - better than Miliband on that specific question [should he be dumped before the next GE]
That's not comparing like-with-like. The Miliband question relates to June 2014, the Corbyn question to his honeymoon period.
But you know that, of course!
Yes :-). But equally it's difficult to argue that Corbyn has actually had a honeymoon - the media coverage has been roughly comparable not just to Alan Clark taking his girlfriend along on honeymoon as well (as he apparently did), but taking his mother-in-law with rolling pin as well.
Objectively I think the facts are clear - compared with most new opposition leaders, unusually large chunks of people have a strong view about Corbyn, both positive and negative. It doesn't matter if people who never vote Labour don't like him, think he should be replaced, etc. It's worrying if floating voters feel that way. But the 37% positive rating is quite resilient considering the universal media battering. I'd have expected it to be lower, and I think most Tories privately would too.
I met a Tory voter friend of mine yesterday who said his son wants to join Labour because of Corbyn. His son works .........with hedge funds !
Some of his friends [ the father's ] also likes Corbyn because he says Corbyn has been unfairly attacked. He said many leaders did not sing the National Anthem.
Astonishing effort by Wood. I fear the end is nigh but what an effort. Makes Buttler look all the worse I am afraid to say.
It's a real shame about Buttler. Not sure where England go next for a keeper, as Bairstow is not confidence-inspiring either.
Bairstow has batted well in this match, although nothing like as well as the bowlers. I think Buttler seriously needs a break for his own good as much as anything else but I hope we have no seen the last of them. And there it is. Great effort though.
Astonishing effort by Wood. I fear the end is nigh but what an effort. Makes Buttler look all the worse I am afraid to say.
It's a real shame about Buttler. Not sure where England go next for a keeper, as Bairstow is not confidence-inspiring either.
Bairstow has batted well in this match, although nothing like as well as the bowlers. I think Buttler seriously needs a break for his own good as much as anything else but I hope we have no seen the last of them. And there it is. Great effort though.
Hales should come in as an opener. Taylor should replace Bell. Bairstow should keep wicket. Moeen bats at No.7. Buttler and Bell should be dropped.
Rashid plays so well and patiently and then gets out like that.
Criminal.
There has been a crime committed in this match, several in fact, but not by Rashid.
Ali needs to be back at 8. Buttler needs to be on the beach. Bell is still hanging on by his finger tips, personally I would say thanks and cheerio. Stokes needs to show a lot more of his undoubted promise.
Say what you like about Thatcher, but even she would've never done these tax credit cuts - she would've been well aware of how symbolically disastrous it would be to cut the wages of hard-working "strivers".
Still, atleast this episode might shake the deluded commentariat out of thinking this government is "in the centre-ground".
Astonishing effort by Wood. I fear the end is nigh but what an effort. Makes Buttler look all the worse I am afraid to say.
It's a real shame about Buttler. Not sure where England go next for a keeper, as Bairstow is not confidence-inspiring either.
Bairstow has batted well in this match, although nothing like as well as the bowlers. I think Buttler seriously needs a break for his own good as much as anything else but I hope we have no seen the last of them. And there it is. Great effort though.
Hales should come in as an opener. Taylor should replace Bell. Bairstow should keep wicket. Moeen bats at No.7. Buttler and Bell should be dropped.
(1) Reintroduce primary purpose (2) Make spousal visas subject to points - end automatic settlement rights (3) Non-EU work visas to be set to a max of 4 years (4) No right to bring your whole family over - reform human rights (5) Students should have to leave the UK to apply for a new permit to work if they wish to continue here once graduating (see 3) (6) Thresholds to be placed on EEC/EFTA free movement, above which checks and restrictions kick in (7) strengthen removals and deportation teams
None of those close the open door to low wage, low skilled immigration from the EU which is people's primary concern. Putting up barriers to non-EU nationals who will be highly skilled and fill a lot of our skills shortage in certain industries is a poor idea. At the moment we have the worst of both worlds, unlimited low value immigration from the EU and highly restrictive immigration rules for skilled people from the US/Canada/Australia and other nations outside of the EU.
These all assume static working hours. I think the minimum wage should rise faster and the new higher rates be extended to 21 and older as well. However, that doesn't change the need to reform the tax credits system and make more work pay. Removing the artificial 16 hour barrier is of massive importance as well.
Some of his friends [ the father's ] also likes Corbyn because he says Corbyn has been unfairly attacked. He said many leaders did not sing the National Anthem.
Is there a sympathy vote ?
I think the attacks were too scattergun. Quite a few voters, like Southam and Cyclefree, undoubtedly feel unhappy about his past willingness to talk to the IRA and Hamas. But most voters really do not care about his collar button or attendance at a rugby match or taking a few days walking in Scotland or whether he always sings the anthem. When the media shout about all five at once it's clearly OTT and people start to feel some sympathy.
(1) Reintroduce primary purpose (2) Make spousal visas subject to points - end automatic settlement rights (3) Non-EU work visas to be set to a max of 4 years (4) No right to bring your whole family over - reform human rights (5) Students should have to leave the UK to apply for a new permit to work if they wish to continue here once graduating (see 3) (6) Thresholds to be placed on EEC/EFTA free movement, above which checks and restrictions kick in (7) strengthen removals and deportation teams
None of those close the open door to low wage, low skilled immigration from the EU which is people's primary concern. Putting up barriers to non-EU nationals who will be highly skilled and fill a lot of our skills shortage in certain industries is a poor idea. At the moment we have the worst of both worlds, unlimited low value immigration from the EU and highly restrictive immigration rules for skilled people from the US/Canada/Australia and other nations outside of the EU.
I think the sort of immigration people are most concerned about is from MENA, not the Eastern european States although I agree that should be controlled too.
The EU is a back door to the former and a front door to the latter.
Some of his friends [ the father's ] also likes Corbyn because he says Corbyn has been unfairly attacked. He said many leaders did not sing the National Anthem.
Is there a sympathy vote ?
I think the attacks were too scattergun. Quite a few voters, like Southam and Cyclefree, undoubtedly feel unhappy about his past willingness to talk to the IRA and Hamas. But most voters really do not care about his collar button or attendance at a rugby match or taking a few days walking in Scotland or whether he always sings the anthem. When the media shout about all five at once it's clearly OTT and people start to feel some sympathy.
Come off it, Corbyn is condemned not for talking to the IRA, but for supporting them. Do you think we're idiots?
But most voters really do not care about his collar button or attendance at a rugby match or taking a few days walking in Scotland or whether he always sings the anthem. When the media shout about all five at once it's clearly OTT and people start to feel some sympathy.
attendance at a rugby match = attendance at the opening ceremony of a major sporting event being hosted by the country he wants to govern
taking a few days walking in Scotland = not taking his job as LotO seriously enough to get briefed on what may be crucial security information (and v obviously snubbing the Queen)
Some of his friends [ the father's ] also likes Corbyn because he says Corbyn has been unfairly attacked. He said many leaders did not sing the National Anthem.
Is there a sympathy vote ?
I think the attacks were too scattergun. Quite a few voters, like Southam and Cyclefree, undoubtedly feel unhappy about his past willingness to talk to the IRA and Hamas. But most voters really do not care about his collar button or attendance at a rugby match or taking a few days walking in Scotland or whether he always sings the anthem. When the media shout about all five at once it's clearly OTT and people start to feel some sympathy.
Come off it, Corbyn is condemned not for talking to the IRA, but for supporting them. Do you think we're idiots?
And Nick is curiously coy about why 'taking a few days walking in Scotland or whether he always sings the anthem' were considered noteworthy.
It's worth remembering that even the SNP were forced to back-track on their anti-monarchy position. Even in Scotland the monarchy is extremely popular. Amongst Labour target voters in English marginals, even more so.
Of course Nick is right that Corbyn got a barrage of negative comment on becoming leader. But that's not going to improve - rather the reverse, I think. This is as good as it gets for Corbyn, the only way from here is downhill.
History is certainly repeating itself. First the clergy come out against Tory cruelty then the House of Lords have had enough...next we'll hear whispers that the Queen is unhappy....
The outcome last time was a legacy that still survives...... It survived Iraq and even the worst recession of all time. The Tories since the 80's have been the 'nasty party' and the country only vote them in when they're desperate. All Labour have to do is wait......
History is certainly repeating itself. First the clergy come out against Tory cruelty then the House of Lords have had enough...next we'll hear whispers that the Queen is unhappy....
The outcome last time was a legacy that still survives...... It survived Iraq and even the worst recession of all time. The Tories since the 80's have been the 'nasty party' and the country only vote them in when they're desperate. All Labour have to do is wait......
I don't think just waiting will get Labour a competent leader..
Nick Palmer always keeps pumping out this bullshine about Corbyn..because he does think the rest of us are stupid..He is obviously adopting the old Goebbels stand by."Tell a lie often enough ....."
But most voters really do not care about his collar button or attendance at a rugby match or taking a few days walking in Scotland or whether he always sings the anthem. When the media shout about all five at once it's clearly OTT and people start to feel some sympathy.
attendance at a rugby match = attendance at the opening ceremony of a major sporting event being hosted by the country he wants to govern
taking a few days walking in Scotland = not taking his job as LotO seriously enough to get briefed on what may be crucial security information (and v obviously snubbing the Queen)
Isn't Rugby a game played by men with funny balls !
History is certainly repeating itself. First the clergy come out against Tory cruelty then the House of Lords have had enough...next we'll hear whispers that the Queen is unhappy....
The outcome last time was a legacy that still survives...... It survived Iraq and even the worst recession of all time. The Tories since the 80's have been the 'nasty party' and the country only vote them in when they're desperate. All Labour have to do is wait......
Great effort by Rashid.. I wouldn't be too hard on him
The best English wicketkeeper hasn't played for his country for 13 years
I'm sure Chris Read played for England more recently than that
More seriously, even if Bairstow is not next cab off the rank there are plenty of other possibles around. Adam Wheater scored 600 runs last year in a struggling Hampshire side. Sam Billings is good in one-day stuff, although I'm not convinced in the longer format. Brian Cox at Worcestershire did even better than Wheater (713 runs at 36) in a side doing even worse than Hampshire. Gareth Roderick has shown considerable ability on occasion although this season he was frustratingly inconsistent after an ill-timed injury. My reservation with all of them is that they are still quite young and I would like them to have 2-3 more years - the years Butler didn't get - to mature.
The one thing I think we can all agree on is that Butler needs a break. I was sceptical when he first came in - then he had some good performances against India and I decided I was wrong. But it's now clear that he's simply not ready for the more formidable teams in world cricket - first Australia, now Pakistan, and as for South Africa...
History is certainly repeating itself. First the clergy come out against Tory cruelty then the House of Lords have had enough...next we'll hear whispers that the Queen is unhappy....
The outcome last time was a legacy that still survives...... It survived Iraq and even the worst recession of all time. The Tories since the 80's have been the 'nasty party' and the country only vote them in when they're desperate. All Labour have to do is wait......
I admire your optimism Roger. Don't you think however that a party led by Jeremy Corbyn, a man linked admittedly in some cases rather tenuously with unabashed support for the IRA, the Islington paedophile scandal, Holocaust denial, threats to rape female opponents and Tom Watson is going to struggle somewhat to portray its opponents as 'the nasty party'?
I know you didn't vote for him, and I am not criticising you personally. But I think you as a party have made the whole country pretty desperate to ensure Labour do not hold office for the foreseeable future.
Comments
The Lib Dems were set up to be destroyed. The Conservatives didn't need to take very many votes from the party to wipe them out, given that most of their MPs were defending smallish majorities, built up over decades of anti-Conservative tactical voting. Enough left wing voters felt betrayed to switch back to Labour.
The targeting was of course, excellent. Lynton Crosby knew exactly which voters to go after in which constituencies. The luck came as follows, however:-
1. The rise of the SNP. They are disliked South of the Border, and vote Labour/ get SNP ensured right of centre voters rallied to the Conservatives.
2. The rise of UKIP was unforeseen. UKIP ended up taking votes of the Conservatives (rather than their going to Labour) in mid-term. But, a lot of those voters returned to the Conservatives in May. At the same, Labour-UKIP defectors stayed with UKIP.
3. Ed Milliband was simply not Prime Ministerial.
Whisper it quietly, but people on low wages without, or with only perhaps a single child won't be displeased.
However, it is the case that UKIP's only MP did vote with the government and in favour of reducing the incomes of many low paid workers/
FPTP in all its glory. The SNP got 50% of the vote in Scotland and over 90% of the seats there. The LDs got 8% of the national vote, but less than 2% of seats in the Commons, while UKIP and its voters got royally screwed.
Better to give people the chance to earn a decent wage rather than depress it and the state dole it back as it sees fit, in my book
@jameskirkup If Cameron wants to bring in a fully elected Lords I will co-sponsor the bill. @asabenn
Better to ensure that people are earning a decent wage and then reduce tax credits, in my book. Penalising hard working people living on the breadline for not having well paid jobs is not an attractive look.
More people think Labour should dump Jeremy Corbyn as leader than think they should keep him, an exclusive poll reveals today.
Some 42 per cent told Ipsos MORI that the party should change leader before the 2020 general election — including 30 per cent who “strongly” felt Mr Corbyn should be tossed overboard.
Only 31 per cent felt he should stay to fight the 2020 election, including 19 per cent who felt it strongly.
Con 36 (-3) Lab 32 (-2) UKIP 12 (+5) LD 10 (+1)
http://bit.ly/1PNVwYS
In any case, the people on the breadline have been taken out of the tax threshold since Labour left govt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11954643/Tim-Farrons-call-for-the-House-of-Lords-to-kill-tax-credit-cuts-is-monstrous-hypocrisy.html
Another big Gov't saving for Goerge to find methinks
Unlike the Monarchy, no tourist ever cared that we have a HoL.
Immigration may mean the lowest paid do not earn as much, but that is not the same as lowering their living standards. Cheap labour may well mean lower prices, for example. And that helps those on low incomes, as well as those with no job, such as pensioners.
UKIP is not opposed to a tax gimmick. It is opposed to a benefit that is demonstrably beneficial to many low income families. It supports removing that benefit before ensuring that such families are able to compensate for the loss in other ways.
Part Time Workers Supplementary Benefit
Child Benefit Extra Bonus
Jobseekers Allowance Supplementary Benefit.
That covers the vast majority of all cases.
They will be relying on frightening the horses again in GE2020 to maintain power.
Immigration lowers the standard of living in a lot more than monetary terms for those affected, but I can't be bothered going over all that again. It would be like revisiting arguments with tim.
The way I see it, the last labour government made the working class ill and now want to keep them hooked on medicine they have the contract to provide, rather than curing them.
There are a large number of working people without children who never receive a penny in tax credits yet they are on low pay. These people are simply getting a payrise.
It seems sensible to phase in the reforms so that the pain of the losers is mitigated.
Immigration is by a country mile the number one issue of most people in this country, concern about it are at their highest ever level and the consequences of it, both socially and politically, are clearly visible both domestically and on the continent.
Yet it's quite clear the Conservatives won't take any additional measures to bring it under control than those they have already implemented, and they are starting to doubt the wisdom even of those. In addition, the shibboleths of the Left are starting to creep into their everyday conversation on the subject.
Do they have a deathwish? Or do they just hope it will go away?
But you know that, of course!
But I don't doubt you personally have the best interests of the poorest at heart... I do too, but we disagree on the best means to achieve it
Lib Dems 2.41 votes
SNP 1.45 votes
So UKIP just edged more votes than Lib Dems and SNP combined
Which seems fair.
English rearguard!! English rearguard!! haven't you seen the movie!
The fact that for many working people with the 48% taper in the withdrawl of Working Tax Credit , their effective marginal tax rate will be as high as 68% plus National Insurance seems to have not been mentioned much.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/marijuana-businesses-colorado-republican-president-election
That was practically DavidLesque
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/balancedmigration.pdf
My suggestions:
(1) Reintroduce primary purpose
(2) Make spousal visas subject to points - end automatic settlement rights
(3) Non-EU work visas to be set to a max of 4 years
(4) No right to bring your whole family over - reform human rights
(5) Students should have to leave the UK to apply for a new permit to work if they wish to continue here once graduating (see 3)
(6) Thresholds to be placed on EEC/EFTA free movement, above which checks and restrictions kick in
(7) strengthen removals and deportation teams
Both are vital for survival in certain circumstances, but too much leads to dependency, which leads to misery
The dealers want to keep the vulnerable hooked though, and it suits them to portray anyone who tries to wean people off as the bad guy
Objectively I think the facts are clear - compared with most new opposition leaders, unusually large chunks of people have a strong view about Corbyn, both positive and negative. It doesn't matter if people who never vote Labour don't like him, think he should be replaced, etc. It's worrying if floating voters feel that way. But the 37% positive rating is quite resilient considering the universal media battering. I'd have expected it to be lower, and I think most Tories privately would too.
Some of his friends [ the father's ] also likes Corbyn because he says Corbyn has been unfairly attacked. He said many leaders did not sing the National Anthem.
Is there a sympathy vote ?
And there it is. Great effort though.
Criminal.
That's the problem. County cricket is not good at telling us who can stand up to test match pressure, and who can't.
Get rid of it and replace with regional competition, fewer teams more pressure.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=8;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=innings;innings_number=4;orderby=balls_faced;template=results;type=batting
The best English wicketkeeper hasn't played for his country for 13 years
Ali needs to be back at 8.
Buttler needs to be on the beach.
Bell is still hanging on by his finger tips, personally I would say thanks and cheerio.
Stokes needs to show a lot more of his undoubted promise.
Still, atleast this episode might shake the deluded commentariat out of thinking this government is "in the centre-ground".
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/26/working-tax-credits-two-thirds-will-be-worse-off-in-2020-research-finds
Will get someone to post if I'm dead by 5pm!!!!!!!
The EU is a back door to the former and a front door to the latter.
taking a few days walking in Scotland = not taking his job as LotO seriously enough to get briefed on what may be crucial security information (and v obviously snubbing the Queen)
It's worth remembering that even the SNP were forced to back-track on their anti-monarchy position. Even in Scotland the monarchy is extremely popular. Amongst Labour target voters in English marginals, even more so.
Of course Nick is right that Corbyn got a barrage of negative comment on becoming leader. But that's not going to improve - rather the reverse, I think. This is as good as it gets for Corbyn, the only way from here is downhill.
The outcome last time was a legacy that still survives...... It survived Iraq and even the worst recession of all time. The Tories since the 80's have been the 'nasty party' and the country only vote them in when they're desperate. All Labour have to do is wait......
More seriously, even if Bairstow is not next cab off the rank there are plenty of other possibles around. Adam Wheater scored 600 runs last year in a struggling Hampshire side. Sam Billings is good in one-day stuff, although I'm not convinced in the longer format. Brian Cox at Worcestershire did even better than Wheater (713 runs at 36) in a side doing even worse than Hampshire. Gareth Roderick has shown considerable ability on occasion although this season he was frustratingly inconsistent after an ill-timed injury. My reservation with all of them is that they are still quite young and I would like them to have 2-3 more years - the years Butler didn't get - to mature.
The one thing I think we can all agree on is that Butler needs a break. I was sceptical when he first came in - then he had some good performances against India and I decided I was wrong. But it's now clear that he's simply not ready for the more formidable teams in world cricket - first Australia, now Pakistan, and as for South Africa...
I know you didn't vote for him, and I am not criticising you personally. But I think you as a party have made the whole country pretty desperate to ensure Labour do not hold office for the foreseeable future.
'All Labour have to do is wait...... '
For at least 10 years if they are lucky.