Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How it could go wrong for LAB in South Shields: 1. The man

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How it could go wrong for LAB in South Shields: 1. The manner of the selection and choice of the candidate

Already there are rumblings in South Shields about who LAB should choose for the super-safe seat in the coming by-election partly because the national party has got “form” in the area.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The Guardian also picks up on the question of MP selection and strikes a surprisingly bitter tone:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/01/david-miliband-british-politics-mps

    The anti-politics mood is strong when it has permeated the Guardian.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    Well, my first (meaningful) comment for ages was really left high & dry by the new thread!
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    OT. That's an unsavoury story.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    I thought Paolo di Canio had been selected.

    Or am I getting muddled?
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Local, local, local.

    No parachutes.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited April 2013
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    I said that 800+ thou figure was dodgy at the time as it seemed to be based on 2009 info/big chunk of it a consequence of changes in 2008.
  • It isn't really comparable to the Tories in Eastleigh. The Tories' unelectable halfwit was already in place, and harder to dislodge than to keep. Labour's is already halfway across the Atlantic, and they can basically pick who they like.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    benedictbrogan Labour now led by people who for 10yrs thought Tony Blair was a problem and Gordon Brown was the answer. Nice line from @JananGanesh
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    I don't know Mike, you make it seem so...manipulated. It's almost as though the people's own party was being run for the benefit of a cohort at the top and the centre. Surely this cannot be true and you are being overly jaundiced.

    I remember a story of when John Major was being considered for Huntingdon which as I recall was then the safest tory seat in the country. It was explained to him that such seats really should be occupied by those who were at least going to reach the cabinet.

    I think from the major parties' point of view this is the correct approach and may well have been the thinking in 2001. Labour will win this seat regardless and should be focussing on what the MP for the next 20 years (if he or she wants it) will bring to the party and to government. That is far more important than what the winning margin is in 2013.
  • @Avery
    AveryLP said:

    I thought Paolo di Canio had been selected.

    Or am I getting muddled?

    LOL!

    No, I think he's standing for the Black Cats, or the Black Shirts, or maybe I'm getting muddled too....
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @DavidL FPT

    I agree with your points - but it applies when the minimum wage catches up with the semi-skilled wage, not before, as was suggested by the other poster.

    It is indeed a complicated thing. There's also the issue that higher paid employees tend to hang on to jobs longer and get more in-job training. Overall, I'm now tentatively in favour of having a living wage. However, it should only be a secondary policy once we have removed labour taxes on those at the minimum wage level.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @DavidL

    This is a non-aligned blog...
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    I am sure another Labourite leaving the Commons and ending up in ermine was a complete coincidence and no back door sorry back room deal had been done in advance. I am sure Tim agrees with me....
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    paulwaugh Blimey, the petition asking IDS to prove he can live on £53/wk petition just passed the 200k mark
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    This debasement of our politics starts early, with the exorbitant cost of being selected as a candidate. As Peter Watt, former Labour general secretary, recently wrote about his party's selection procedure: "If you can't afford to take a couple of months off work, pay for accommodation and travel, abandon your family and pay for your own materials you are screwed. In other words you need to be a political insider whose boss is supporting them; a trade union official or very rich." And that's before you even run for a seat, the bill for which can easily top £10,000. If Cameron, Miliband and Clegg want to fulfil their promises to make their parties more diverse, they can start by funding those on low incomes to become candidates. The Labour Diversity Fund calls for 5% of all party donations to go towards such a cause; it's a small enough step that all the main sides could and should do it.

    It's worth bearing in mind that salaries for MPs were brought in to make sure ordinary people could afford to be MPs. Unfortunately this has been undone by a selection system where ordinary people can not afford to be selected as candidates to be MPs.

    The reason this happens, of course, is that the parties can not afford to pay expenses, so they instead rely on the candidate to do it. I would much prefer that we take off spending limits for this, and instead control campaign finance by donations limits.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    edited April 2013
    @Socrates

    Those on the minimum wage are now just about out of IT. 35 x 6.19 x52 = £11,265. So they pay very little tax indeed. Plenty of NI of course...

    Reducing tax on the poor seems to have won very few friends for the government even although it has not been conjoined with any cuts of in work benefits (at least until now).

    I am also concerned that more and more of our working population do not have a clear vested interest in keeping spending down because they do not pay for it. It reminds me of the old arguments about the poll tax but curiously the tories are on the other side this time.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    OT but most amusing for train commuters

    " There is something about human nature that lends itself to territorial dispute. The list is long: the Palestinian territories, the Falkland Islands, Tibet, Kashmir. On a more quotidian level, however, there is another tiny strip of territory that causes endless irritation to commuters all over the country. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the armrest.

    I have three theories about the advent of the train armrest. In the first, it is the hangover of a more elegant age, when a gentleman commuter’s elbows had to be accounted for, and could in no way be suffered to dangle. Those were the days, obviously, before mass overcrowding and obesity..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/our-man-on-the-train/9966554/Commuter-Spy-what-can-you-do-with-armrest-hoggers.html
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342

    paulwaugh Blimey, the petition asking IDS to prove he can live on £53/wk petition just passed the 200k mark

    Nobody can live on 53 quid a week, they may be able to exist but not live.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    paulwaugh Blimey, the petition asking IDS to prove he can live on £53/wk petition just passed the 200k mark

    Nobody can live on 53 quid a week, they may be able to exist but not live.

    It's not £53 a week. It's £53 after rent and bills are paid for. I know several people at university who did live on about that, and had a good time doing it.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @redcliffe

    When a partisan issue becomes a petition it tells us nothing. They're packed with activists with an axe to grind.

    When its a conscience issue or one based on a single one like Hillsborough it has more credence.
  • @recliffe62
    It's £53 AFTER all expenses have been covered, save food and fun (ie housing, heating, Council Tax etc).

    For almost all of my adult life, despite being a middle-class, middle-wage, white collar worker in a secure job, my disposable income was well under £53/wk.
    It's why I've nearly always had a second job: to pay for an occasional treat, though the term 'busy fool' might have been coined to describe what I did - but since it was more in the way of a profitable hobby, that's OK.
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    After 2001 you would have thought he could have won the leadership no problem, as they actually wanted him for that job.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    OwenJones84 Tory-allied "journalists" conduct character assassinations against people hit by cuts who speak publicly, knowing it'll deter others. Sick.

  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    Socrates said:

    paulwaugh Blimey, the petition asking IDS to prove he can live on £53/wk petition just passed the 200k mark

    Nobody can live on 53 quid a week, they may be able to exist but not live.

    It's not £53 a week. It's £53 after rent and bills are paid for. I know several people at university who did live on about that, and had a good time doing it.
    I lived on 80 quid a week at uni on a postgrad grant comfortably, but that was 29 years ago and inflation has an effect. If 53 quid is enough now including transport costs then I would be more than a bit surprised.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Guido has a look at Miliband's African connection.

    http://order-order.com/2013/04/02/a-masterclass-in-miliband-spin/
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @AN1

    "It's £53 AFTER all expenses have been covered, save food and fun (ie housing, heating, Council Tax etc)"

    I could eat out every night for £53 and give leftoevers to my cats and dogs without a second thought.

    I assumed £53 included all bills bar housing - but clearly not. What planet are these moaners on?
  • It is a very good thing that the welfare debate seems to have begun. We can't afford what we have now and so a healthy argument is certainly needed. Maybe PB should run a thread or two about what we changes we need to welfare?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Ed on Candidate selection in interview with Labour list:

    “It’s something we’re doing with the future candidates programme. It’s something Jon Trickett has been doing going round the country trying to encourage more people from different class backgrounds to come into politics. In a way the responsibility is partly with local parties. Local parties have to try and select people – I don’t want to sound like I’m pulling up the drawbridge for former Special Advisers having been a Special Adviser, but diversity really matters. Not just gender diversity, but lets get people from a whole different range of backgrounds. From the military – Dan Jarvis is a great member of parliament we’d like to have more people like that. From business. You’ve got to try and look like the country you seek to represent.”

    http://labourlist.org/2013/04/ed-miliband-interview-part-two-on-selections-community-organising-and-the-future-of-the-labour-party/
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Plato said:

    @redcliffe

    When a partisan issue becomes a petition it tells us nothing. They're packed with activists with an axe to grind.

    When its a conscience issue or one based on a single one like Hillsborough it has more credence.

    @Plato ,We wouldn't be talking/posting about it if it wasn't for another foot in the mouth moment from another cabinet minister,I expected better from IDS.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    tim said:

    I'd imagine the local council leader will get it.
    Labour are unlikely to make the mistake Cameron and Shapps did with Maria Hutchings

    Not sure that selecting someone allegedly accused of electoral fraud albeit some years ago would be a good idea .

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    That Owen Jones comment is an interesting one. Its true the right is way, way better at giving examples of welfarism to support its case than the left is.

    Why is that? beats me. The left spout statistics like numbers of children 'falling into poverty', but have completely failed to personalise their argument with examples.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @taffys

    Owen Jones? The kid who blamed Thatcher for chavs poor dress sense? I heard him do this on UAN on R5.

    He makes Scargill look sensible. He blocks everyone on twitter who disagrees with his views - he'd be mullered on PB..
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    dr_spyn said:

    Guido has a look at Miliband's African connection.

    Sometimes the comments on Guido's threads can be so Dickensian:

    https://twitter.com/IDS_MP/status/319060265025015808/photo/1
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    paulwaugh Blimey, the petition asking IDS to prove he can live on £53/wk petition just passed the 200k mark

    Nobody can live on 53 quid a week, they may be able to exist but not live.

    Repeat after me: Safety net, not lifestyle choice.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    @antifrank - interesting article, and as you say striking tone.

    The best tweet I read about Miliband sr was: "You wait the 5 years since 2008 for a David Miliband resignation - and two come along in one week"

    What a Tyneside MP was doing in the board of a Wearside club is quite another matter!
  • @MarkSenior
    'Child Poverty' is simply the PC/Newspeak version of 'useless parenting' and should be treated as such.

    In this case, it's the parents who need 'a good clip around the ear ole'
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    I can't believe Labour would be so stupid as to select someone so unspeakably awful or alien to South Shields that they might actually lose one of the safest seats in the country, in a mid-term by-election, when everything is in their favour. The time to parachute the golden boys and girls into safe seats is at a GE, when any local disgruntlement would be lost in the national picture.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    BenM said:

    Local, local, local. No parachutes.

    Local schmocal. Labour will very probably win this seat whoever they pick, and even if they lose it they should get it back in the general election. It would be a bit embarrassing to lose it, but an emboldened UKIP isn't necessarily bad for Labour come 2015, even if it's to their cost in the short term.

    Labour need good people to be in the government. That person could come from anywhere in the country. If they've got someone good to parachute in and nobody awesome locally they should go ahead and parachute them in.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    BethRigby Coming back from Sittingbourne and Ozzy speech. Pitched perfectly to an audience earning on av 20k a year in a key swing seat. was popular
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    tim,

    If the government starts messing about with the minimum wage, it will not end well. A sleeping dog that certainly should be left to lie, in my view. Labour would be on a much stronger footing here than on welfare.
  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    Any employer that can't afford to pay a tenner an hour, (including the NI, tax etc), shouldn't bother being in business. If the takehome minimum pay for a job was 10 quid an hour, (scrap income tax and NI up to that amount), there's no excuses for black economy employment etc. If the sums don't add up, put VAT up to compensate. Stick it on books and newspapers for a start.

    Like in most other countries there are a bunch of extremely dodgy employers at the bottom end of the scale. Spend some time and effort on chasing them out of business, especially the so called agencies importing cheap labour for the hotel industry in London for example. Plenty of money is being made exploiting those with little or no protection.
  • @Patrick

    I agree with that suggestion. A poster up-thread mentioned HMRC/HMG 'being unable to come to grips with raising the pension age faster than they expected' (OWTTE).

    A) Why not? This ought to be easy - it's going the other way that would be difficult, IMO!
    B) Just how fast and just how high are we talking about here? The current idea is 68 in 20 years or so, IIRC, when it was 80 in 1906 and the quicker it's back there, the quicker our Govt income/expenditure account will start to look healthy.
    Phased over a decade, mind, not a weekend, so retirement is gradual - and the pension is min wage/ IT threshold level, so effectively making the State pension tax-free.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    "I am also concerned that more and more of our working population do not have a clear vested interest in keeping spending down because they do not pay for it"

    Before the last GE I am sure that was the Conservative party position. In a system that relies on robbing Peter to pay Paul, cutting the number of Peters may not be the best idea. However, in coalition the Conservatives bowed to the Lib Dems on this and have since been ineffectually trying to make a virtue of their necessity. As ever Cameron and his clique have managed to get the worst of both worlds, the really are fecking useless, at the politics as well as the the administration.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    tim said:



    I don't know why this has to be repeated on every thread.

    Very funny, considering you've repeated the same two or three things on every thread since 2009.

    (But: fair point. And I've been away, this is my first outing on the new comment thingy.)
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    OwenJones84 Tory-allied "journalists" conduct character assassinations against people hit by cuts who speak publicly, knowing it'll deter others. Sick.

    Thank goodness Owen Jones never engages in character assassinations.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited April 2013
    @Plato.
    I've no idea - JSA is ~£75 (?)/wk, and HB would cover all but fuel costs and food, so I'm (wildly) guessing that's where this figure came from - £53 being the 'just left school' rate for JSA (eq).

    As I posted up-thread, for nearly all my adult life I've worked hard and had much less than that sum as 'disposable/discretionary income' after covering mortgage, other housing costs, fuel, motoring/commuting.

    Even a cheap package holiday was something we could only afford every few years, sadly.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    DavidL said:

    @Socrates

    Those on the minimum wage are now just about out of IT. 35 x 6.19 x52 = £11,265. So they pay very little tax indeed. Plenty of NI of course...

    Reducing tax on the poor seems to have won very few friends for the government even although it has not been conjoined with any cuts of in work benefits (at least until now).

    I am also concerned that more and more of our working population do not have a clear vested interest in keeping spending down because they do not pay for it. It reminds me of the old arguments about the poll tax but curiously the tories are on the other side this time.

    I was referring more to national insurance in this case. It has won some friends - it's one of the positive reasons to vote for them in my book.

    As for your last paragraph, I think this is an overblown fear. Firstly, even those low earners still pay VAT. Secondly, polling in the US has shown that most people who don't pay taxes assume they do, so it doesn't make much difference.

  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Socrates said:

    This debasement of our politics starts early, with the exorbitant cost of being selected as a candidate. As Peter Watt, former Labour general secretary, recently wrote about his party's selection procedure: "If you can't afford to take a couple of months off work, pay for accommodation and travel, abandon your family and pay for your own materials you are screwed. In other words you need to be a political insider whose boss is supporting them; a trade union official or very rich." And that's before you even run for a seat, the bill for which can easily top £10,000. If Cameron, Miliband and Clegg want to fulfil their promises to make their parties more diverse, they can start by funding those on low incomes to become candidates. The Labour Diversity Fund calls for 5% of all party donations to go towards such a cause; it's a small enough step that all the main sides could and should do it.

    It's worth bearing in mind that salaries for MPs were brought in to make sure ordinary people could afford to be MPs. Unfortunately this has been undone by a selection system where ordinary people can not afford to be selected as candidates to be MPs.

    The reason this happens, of course, is that the parties can not afford to pay expenses, so they instead rely on the candidate to do it. I would much prefer that we take off spending limits for this, and instead control campaign finance by donations limits.

    Will Straw did a paper about Labour selections a couple of years ago. it's off line now. But they interviewed 101 Labour PPCs for 2010 GE. One of them claimed to have spent £4,000 in his/her selection campaign
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    @Plato ,We wouldn't be talking/posting about it if it wasn't for another foot in the mouth moment from another cabinet minister,I expected better from IDS.

    What would you expect him to say? His response 'I would if I had to' is entirely respectable, if a missed opportunity (someone posted a better response on the last thread), but it's hardly a gaff.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    taffys said:

    tim,

    If the government starts messing about with the minimum wage, it will not end well. A sleeping dog that certainly should be left to lie, in my view. Labour would be on a much stronger footing here than on welfare.

    Agree taffy,the way Osborne is going,can the tories win a GE with only the pensioners vote ;-)

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    We could have the amusing spectacle of the prospective candidates lining up to critique the new manager of the local footie team as he saves them from relegation ;)
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Charles said:



    @Plato ,We wouldn't be talking/posting about it if it wasn't for another foot in the mouth moment from another cabinet minister,I expected better from IDS.

    What would you expect him to say? His response 'I would if I had to' is entirely respectable, if a missed opportunity (someone posted a better response on the last thread), but it's hardly a gaff.
    It is a gaff,when the people opposing you have the opportunity of asking you to prove it.

  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    If the council leader is deemed unsuitable (that's the type of person you usually see described as "controversial"), there's always his brother called Ed! He's also the Chair of Unite's Regional Political Committee

    He's allegedly crap though! In Middlesbrough selection he got 0 votes.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    the way Osborne is going,can the tories win a GE with only the pensioners vote ;-)

    The trouble for the tories is that people they are courting are not feeling better off because of inflation, and in particular energy prices.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Hilarious Granuaid article on why the £10k tax limit is bad.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/01/tax-free-sop-low-paid

    "A fundamental component of citizenship, however, is paying towards the ongoing work of building and maintaining resources for everyone to use.

    More fundamentally, it suggests that people on low wages are effectively earning pin money, not "proper" money that requires being taxed, and therefore that the low-waged aren't full citizens. It also throws those on low incomes further to the wolves in terms of their perceived entitlement to public (or perhaps that shoulid be once-public) resources."
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    concerning the manner of the selection...how far is too far?

    In Rotherham more than half of the CLP walked out the selection meeting (with the TV cameras outside) scheduled on the eve of the close of nominations and the PPC was selected by the 25 remaining members (13 votes to 12). Can they surpass this?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    It is a gaff,when the people opposing you have the opportunity of asking you to prove it.

    No, it's symptomatic of the trivialisation of politics. Of course IDS could live on £53 after bills. But it doesn't actually matter.

    How would you have answered the question?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    TGOHF said:

    Hilarious Granuaid article on why the £10k tax limit is bad.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/01/tax-free-sop-low-paid

    "A fundamental component of citizenship, however, is paying towards the ongoing work of building and maintaining resources for everyone to use.

    More fundamentally, it suggests that people on low wages are effectively earning pin money, not "proper" money that requires being taxed, and therefore that the low-waged aren't full citizens. It also throws those on low incomes further to the wolves in terms of their perceived entitlement to public (or perhaps that shoulid be once-public) resources."

    This was always the Tory case against taking the low paid out of income tax, of course: everyone should have a stake in the system and paying tax ensures they do.

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Charles said:



    It is a gaff,when the people opposing you have the opportunity of asking you to prove it.

    No, it's symptomatic of the trivialisation of politics. Of course IDS could live on £53 after bills. But it doesn't actually matter.

    How would you have answered the question?

    Like -

    George Osborne

    "I don’t think it's sensible to reduce this to a debate about one individual's personal circumstances. This debate is not about any individual."
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    Charles said:



    It is a gaff,when the people opposing you have the opportunity of asking you to prove it.

    No, it's symptomatic of the trivialisation of politics. Of course IDS could live on £53 after bills. But it doesn't actually matter.

    How would you have answered the question?
    Charles, I take it you have your own solutions in China as heard nothing since your request for info.

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited April 2013
    While there is a disconnect between housing costs and wages we will have a problem. Building new homes is one part of a route to correcting the situation. No council tax discount for second homes, a stupid idea to let second home owners off the local tax. Add a couple of bands to the top of the council tax range and charge higher but not punitive rates of council tax.

    Targeted benefits for housing in our current circumstances are essential, but we should be eradicating the causes of housing poverty rather than treating the symptoms.

    I would like to see the cost of energy reduced for those who have to use pre pay meters. The fact that energy companies charge a premium for pre payment is criminal and penalises the poorest in a quest to supply an essential requirement for modern life.

    We need to adapt attitudes, habits and life styles to make work more appealing in the communities that have long term high levels of unemployment. I would consider making benefits subject to attendance on a regular basis (35 hour per week?) at projects including work experience, training, education, charity or community work for all who are unemployed for more than a set period. Could be after 1 year, 6 months, 3 months, take your pick. Preventing the couch potato life style should bring about health improvements as well.

    Cutting the minimum wage would be a bad move although I think it has unintended consequence dragging more positions down towards the minimum.

    Drugs? Who was the idiot that thought prohibition would ever work? Legalise them and control the places in which they can be used.

    Rant over
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    @TGOHF - only a southern implant would think Sunderland a "local" football club on Tyneside.

    When I first went to work in Newcastle my boss put a note on his door (as he had confidential papers inside) " Do not clean office" someone wrote under that "Sunderland Supporter"...
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    edited April 2013
    £53 a week, pocket money.

    It's a tight one, but presuming a person has no need for transport, what can you get?

    Bag of chips: £1.00
    Macdonalds Happy Meal: £2.54
    Gram of meow (Methedrone): £10.00 - can be bartered
    Cheap 5% bottled/canned lager x 24: £6.00
    40 Cheap Cigarettes: About £6.50per pack
    Bag of Penne Pasta: £1.10
    Cigarette Lighter: £0.90
    Loaf of bread: £1.20
    Frozen Family Pizza: £1.90
    20 Low Range Fish Fingers: £1.50
    Bag of potatoes: £1.20
    Tins of beans x 4: £1.75
    Cheap Cheese Slices (10): £1.20
    Tinned Tomatoes: £1.75
    4 pint of Milk: £2.30
    Large Box of Weetabix: £4.00
    Cheap Ham slices: £1.00
    Cheap Tukey Slices: £1.00

    You're not going to be the healthiest person in the world, but with a little bit of imagination you could have a few decent meals, some Weetabix each morning and couple of fags a day, drink plenty of water and get off your nut on the weekend. Ideal really :)
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    The question is can omnishambles Osborne get a paddock on £53 a week?
    George Osborne in expense claim for paddock



    George Osborne was under pressure last night after it was revealed he claimed expenses to cover mortgage payments for a paddock.

    The paddock adjoins his Cheshire farmhouse and was bought by the Chancellor and his wife, Frances, as part of the purchase of his Cheshire farmhouse for £455,000 in 2000, before he became an MP.

    After winning a seat at Westminster in the 2001 General Election, Mr Osborne claimed up to £100,000 in expenses for mortgage interest payments on the home and paddock. However, it has now been revealed that the paddock is recorded by the land registry as a property separate from the farmhouse near Macclesfield

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-in-expense-claim-for-paddock-8393737.html
    Reality check for the idiots. The details of the bedroom tax are secondary since you have the most toxic liability possible trying to sell this (how well did that turn out for the omnishambles budget PB tories?) and when the details do eventually become clear it will soon be apparent why the lib dems have let Osbrowne take the rap for this.

    It is of course riddled with incompetence as is every single AAA Osborne master strategy.
    You're going to have to keep learning the hard way. Osbrowne gifted little Ed the labour lead and you seriously think he's thought all of this complexity through? LOL

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    @Gin1138 fpt: I hope everything goes well for you.

    It's feels odd when something that might be seen as bad news (the need for an operation) becomes good news in the context of the other, darker possibilities.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633




    This was always the Tory case against taking the low paid out of income tax, of course: everyone should have a stake in the system and paying tax ensures they do.



    Should imagine large section of low paid who pay no income tax but plenty in VAT, excise duty etc etc - they are contributing plenty.



  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    FPT: Good for you Gin.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921
    I want Paolo di Canio to stand in the by-election :)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    Like - George Osborne

    "I don’t think it's sensible to reduce this to a debate about one individual's personal circumstances. This debate is not about any individual."

    That's doable in a press interview, one on one, but perhaps less so in a live radio interview. Even so, it's hardly a major gaff.
  • samsam Posts: 727

    TGOHF said:

    Hilarious Granuaid article on why the £10k tax limit is bad.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/01/tax-free-sop-low-paid

    "A fundamental component of citizenship, however, is paying towards the ongoing work of building and maintaining resources for everyone to use.

    More fundamentally, it suggests that people on low wages are effectively earning pin money, not "proper" money that requires being taxed, and therefore that the low-waged aren't full citizens. It also throws those on low incomes further to the wolves in terms of their perceived entitlement to public (or perhaps that shoulid be once-public) resources."

    This was always the Tory case against taking the low paid out of income tax, of course: everyone should have a stake in the system and paying tax ensures they do.

    They pay other taxes I suppose, so they do contribute... bedroom tax doesnt count!!

    I dont think it is wise for Labour to keep calling it bedroom tax. Some people will actually think it is a tax, probably quite a few people that it affects... I know it is a political tactic, but its not good for society for young people to grow up thinking of benefit withdrawal as tax



  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921
    Plato said:

    OT but most amusing for train commuters

    " There is something about human nature that lends itself to territorial dispute. The list is long: the Palestinian territories, the Falkland Islands, Tibet, Kashmir. On a more quotidian level, however, there is another tiny strip of territory that causes endless irritation to commuters all over the country. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the armrest.

    I have three theories about the advent of the train armrest. In the first, it is the hangover of a more elegant age, when a gentleman commuter’s elbows had to be accounted for, and could in no way be suffered to dangle. Those were the days, obviously, before mass overcrowding and obesity..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/our-man-on-the-train/9966554/Commuter-Spy-what-can-you-do-with-armrest-hoggers.html

    They removed arm-rests from Central line trains in the 1990s when they kept getting nicked! They are still there on the virtually identical trains on the Waterloo & City line.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    Charles, I take it you have your own solutions in China as heard nothing since your request for info.

    Sorry, posted a thank you at the end of the last thread. Have been busy with Pharmaq (beautiful little business). Poultry is next weeks agenda...
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    TGOHF.
    There's a cracking line in that Guardian article which betrays the mentality of the left unintentionally.

    Tax cuts are always a sop, no matter who you're giving them to.

    ie no tax cut is ever good, and all taxes should only ever head one way...in fact, why don't you just give us the lot..
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Has it been cleared up whether IDS could travel by 1st class on a train on £53 a week ?

    I just don't think the government can be trusted until it is cleared up.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758


    They removed arm-rests from Central line trains in the 1990s when they kept getting nicked! They are still there on the virtually identical trains on the Waterloo & City line.

    We still have one of the wall signs for Holborn that my Dad nicked when he was a teenager...
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Fenster said:

    £53 a week, pocket money.

    It's a tight one, but presuming a person has no need for transport, what can you get?

    Bag of chips: £1.00
    Macdonalds Happy Meal: £2.54
    Gram of meow (Methedrone): £10.00 - can be bartered
    Cheap 5% bottled/canned lager x 24: £6.00
    40 Cheap Cigarettes: About £6.50per pack
    Bag of Penne Pasta: £1.10
    Cigarette Lighter: £0.90
    Loaf of bread: £1.20
    Frozen Family Pizza: £1.90
    20 Low Range Fish Fingers: £1.50
    Bag of potatoes: £1.20
    Tins of beans x 4: £1.75
    Cheap Cheese Slices (10): £1.20
    Tinned Tomatoes: £1.75
    4 pint of Milk: £2.30
    Large Box of Weetabix: £4.00
    Cheap Ham slices: £1.00
    Cheap Tukey Slices: £1.00

    You're not going to be the healthiest person in the world, but with a little bit of imagination you could have a few decent meals, some Weetabix each morning and couple of fags a day, drink plenty of water and get off your nut on the weekend. Ideal really :)

    You can have a perfectly healthy diet in this price range: you've mentioned pasta and beans, but things like apples and carrots are pretty cheap, and there's also tinned tuna and eggs for protein. Cut out the Maccy Ds, the fags and the intoxicants and go for a kickabout in the park instead.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    paulwaugh RT @GuidoFawkes IDS Hits Back: I’ve Lived On £53pw: http://t.co/X1NIinmhkC> "I know what it's like to live on the breadline"
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Perhaps those delusional enough to think councils will take the rap for any of the bedroom tax debacle might care to consider just how well that 'master strategy' is going to go down in the run up to the May local elections.

    Superb timing as always from Mr AAA.



  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Rob_Merrick RT @nicholasfrost: Former Tory MP Edwina Currie says SHE could live on £53 a week Asked her to talk to @5_News about it, she wanted 500 quid

    This is getting dirty.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    "Local schmocal. Labour will very probably win this seat whoever they pick, and even if they lose it they should get it back in the general election. It would be a bit embarrassing to lose it, but an emboldened UKIP isn't necessarily bad for Labour come 2015, even if it's to their cost in the short term.

    Labour need good people to be in the government. That person could come from anywhere in the country. If they've got someone good to parachute in and nobody awesome locally they should go ahead and parachute them in. "

    For the Opposition to lose a seat in a by-election is usually a bad sign, even if they do win it back at the general election. Labour, remarkably, lost three seats in the 1970-74 Parliament, and despite the unpopularity of the Heath government, could only manage a draw in February 1974.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    TGOHF said:

    Hilarious Granuaid article on why the £10k tax limit is bad.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/01/tax-free-sop-low-paid

    "A fundamental component of citizenship, however, is paying towards the ongoing work of building and maintaining resources for everyone to use.

    More fundamentally, it suggests that people on low wages are effectively earning pin money, not "proper" money that requires being taxed, and therefore that the low-waged aren't full citizens. It also throws those on low incomes further to the wolves in terms of their perceived entitlement to public (or perhaps that shoulid be once-public) resources."

    Bloody Tory-led government, giving out sops to help the low paid.

    I'm surprised there isn't a criticism in there that it's just a prelude to re-introduce paying tax as a requirement for voting!
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited April 2013
    @Fenster

    If you take out the frozen/processed food from your list and substitute with real grub you could afford more lager or a third packet of fags. Of course you have to add personal hygiene items to the list - like soap and toothpaste but not razor blades as they are stupidly expensive (so gents you'll have to go bearded, ladies will need to get the gents to buy their booze for them).
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013

    This is getting dirty.

    You forgot hilarious.
    Marquis de Becca ‏@halfabear 30m

    Okay that really is quite funny. The "Make IDS live on £53 a week for a year" petition is over 230k so far http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week
    Who could possibly have foreseen this kind of 'let them eat cake' stupidity rebounding on the incompetent fops? "We're all in this together" after all. ;^)

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    @Mick_Pork - You forgot hilarious

    yes I did ;-)
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Interestingly the Guardian are not criticising the tories today, they are criticising labour for not saying which benefits they will restore.

    Astonishing naivety for journalists, really.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921
    Fenster said:



    Large Box of Weetabix: £4.00

    Weetabix 4 quid? You can get a large box of cornflakes for much less!
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    This might be an all time golden line from the Guardian:

    These "welfare" cuts do indeed have much public support. Are the public stupid, or simply people who don't read the Guardian?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/welfare-cuts-public-on-rights-side
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Pork - the polling seems to support the fops on this one old chap - those certain barometers of public opinion seem to have fallen out of favour with the statists this week..
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Socrates said:

    I'm surprised there isn't a criticism in there that it's just a prelude to re-introduce paying tax as a requirement for voting!

    Wasn't that the subliminal message from refering to it as 'disenfranchisement'
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Fenster said:



    Large Box of Weetabix: £4.00

    Weetabix 4 quid? You can get a large box of cornflakes for much less!
    Porridge is probably the best value cereal - and warms you up on a cold spring morning!
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115

    Fenster said:



    Large Box of Weetabix: £4.00

    Weetabix 4 quid? You can get a large box of cornflakes for much less!
    I was thinking of one of those giant mo-fo's that'll keep you going forever. I'm trying to help the poor out here y'know.

    The more I think of it, the more I wanna live on just £53 a week, I reckon I could save a fortune if I made some cutbacks. I'm one of those imbeciles who goes to Tescos, starving, with no shopping list, spends about £130 on food and then ends up throwing half of it out. I threw out £6 of fresh salmon the other day. Disgraceful.

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Fenster said:

    Fenster said:



    Large Box of Weetabix: £4.00

    Weetabix 4 quid? You can get a large box of cornflakes for much less!
    I was thinking of one of those giant mo-fo's that'll keep you going forever. I'm trying to help the poor out here y'know.

    The more I think of it, the more I wanna live on just £53 a week, I reckon I could save a fortune if I made some cutbacks. I'm one of those imbeciles who goes to Tescos, starving, with no shopping list, spends about £130 on food and then ends up throwing half of it out. I threw out £6 of fresh salmon the other day. Disgraceful.

    Keep spending £130.00 per shop, but drop half your food off at the food bank on your way home.

    You are no worse off, others will be better off.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Yesterday I paid £83 to fill my car with diesel. On Sunday I went to Tescos and spent £112 on messages which admittedly included a couple of decent bottles of wine and a nice roast for Easter. I did not buy washing powder, toothpaste or any of the incidentals that are needed for a household.

    My wife has been to Tescos again today and I even bought a few things yesterday. The idea that you can live reasonably well for £53 a week after housing and heating costs is frankly ridiculous. Our costs reflect a family of 4 who would obviously get more than £53 a week but come on.

    Those that claim those living on benefits have a pleasant life have either never done it or did it so long ago that they have rose tinted spectacles (or maybe those goggles the Guardian was offering yesterday).

    This is not the point. The point is what obligation do we owe our fellow citizens who are not contributing and, even more so, those who have never contributed? What can we afford to pay without damaging our economy and making it uncompetitive? What proportion of earned income should be mandated to the poor? This is the debate we need to have. Arguing about the living costs of a cabinet minister is frankly trivilising and patronising the people those who do it are claiming to help.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921
    Charles said:


    They removed arm-rests from Central line trains in the 1990s when they kept getting nicked! They are still there on the virtually identical trains on the Waterloo & City line.

    We still have one of the wall signs for Holborn that my Dad nicked when he was a teenager...
    How big a wall sign are we talking about here? Hopefully not the platform station sign!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Some of the South Sheilds vox pop from OGH article:

    Just look at Dr David Clark, standing aside and becoming Lord Clark, to enable Tony Blair to put David Miliband into South Shields."

    June Ramsay, 59, of Arthur Street, Whitburn, was still bitter at Mr Miliband’s sudden departure, claiming he used the town as a “stepping stone” in his career path.

    “He used Shields to further his career, but I will vote. It’s our democratic duty to do so.”


    “Labour has ruled this town for as long as I can remember, and what have they achieved?
    It’s hardly a ringing endorsement for their policy if you take a look about here. I think it’s time we had a change. We’ll see what the alternatives are, but I won’t be voting Labour again.”
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Fenster said:



    Large Box of Weetabix: £4.00

    Weetabix 4 quid? You can get a large box of cornflakes for much less!
    Avast, Cap'n Doc, Cornflakes are the Devil's own food. Far, far too much salt, for one thing. When my kidneys went splat one of the first things the quacks told me was, "No more Cornflakes for you, my lad". "Bugger", says I, "Then how about a tasty bacon sarnie with which to break my fast, each morn?" "Well" says the head saw-bones, "If 'ee gets proper bacon (none o' that crap from the supermarkets, mind), then ye'll be better off than eatin' cornflakes. Belike, etc."

    Of course they may have changed the recipe since but in those days (1998) a man-sized portion of cornflakes had about the same salt content as a packet of salted peanuts.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    TGOHF - The PB Tories thought the omnishambles budget was a great idea too. Until it fell to pieces.


    Every single time the fops get into incompetent posturing on these kind of issues they make a fool of themselves. Yet neither the PB tories or Cammie, Osbrowne and chums ever learn.

    Clegg is also toxic with the voters, but even Clegg isn't stupid enough to try and posture like a peacock off the back of a hugely complex measure that will primarily hit the poor affecting the disabled, families, those who work, and yes the unemployed too.

    There's a reason a hopeless case like little Ed has a 10 point lead and it's precisely because the incompetent chumocracy couldn't find their own arse with a flashlight and an arse map.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Sean_F said:

    For the Opposition to lose a seat in a by-election is usually a bad sign, even if they do win it back at the general election.

    Agreed. But it's a sign of what will happen at the general election, not a cause of what then happens at the general election. Whether they win it or not matters to us in predicting whether they'll win the general election or not, but they shouldn't prioritize being absolutely sure of winning the by-election over everything else.

    Obviously the exception is if losing it freaks the party out and sets them dicking around with leadership challenges and things, but if it's UKIP I think Ed Miliband could probably survive it. So I think it would be worth an extra 2% chance of losing or whatever parachuting somebody in might cost them to get the right person in position.
This discussion has been closed.