Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How it could go wrong for LAB in South Shields: 1. The man
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
Or am I getting muddled?
No parachutes.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/04/george-osbornes-man-of-the-people-speech.html
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.
No, I think he's standing for the Black Cats, or the Black Shirts, or maybe I'm getting muddled too....
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.
http://labourlist.org/2013/04/timetable-confirmed-for-south-shields-selection/
This is a non-aligned blog...
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.
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.
" 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
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.
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.
http://order-order.com/2013/04/02/a-masterclass-in-miliband-spin/
"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’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/
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.
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..
https://twitter.com/IDS_MP/status/319060265025015808/photo/1
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!
'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'
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
(But: fair point. And I've been away, this is my first outing on the new comment thingy.)
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.
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.
He's allegedly crap though! In Middlesbrough selection he got 0 votes.
The trouble for the tories is that people they are courting are not feeling better off because of inflation, and in particular energy prices.
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."
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?
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."
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
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"...
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
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
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.
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.
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
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..
I just don't think the government can be trusted until it is cleared up.
Superb timing as always from Mr AAA.
This is getting dirty.
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.
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!
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).
yes I did ;-)
Astonishing naivety for journalists, really.
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
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.
You are no worse off, others will be better off.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.