"Because the Dacre theory is that hysterical headlines sell papers no matter how ridiculous."
Well, he has a good track record in that respect - "good" in the sense of effective.
It's way over the top but even the BBC has gravitated slowly to more sensationalist stories. Headlines like "The Prime Minister will discuss the problem today with her Majesty the Queen" have gone forever.
I am "elite" it seems, though then it goes on to say that many in this group went to private school and like classical music, not true of me. The last slice of the pie was near empty, I seem to be the prole elite.
Elitism seems to be driven by after tax income. You must have an income of over £100K after tax. The rest doesn't matter. You are elite. I am established middle class.
I was a welfare recipient. I claimed the dole when I was unemployed, we got milk vouchers for our eldest child. And the state met our mortgage payments. I had free school meals when I was a kid when both my parents were unemployed. I got a full grant to go to university. I am now a top rate taxpayer and helped to start a company that as well as paying a decent chunk of Corporation Tax also employs around 20 other taxpayers. Without the welfare state, I doubt I could have got to where I am today. When on welfare I did not feel the need to abuse the system. I suspect that most of those who receive welfare aspire to my kind of life than the one led by Philpott the childkiller.
People don't oppose a welfare state if they think it helps 'people like me'.
A welfare state loses support when people think "I've being paying in all these years and then they say I'm not eligible" and instead think its 'people like them' benefiting.
The more I think about it the more I think Frank Field is right - universal benefits are required if people are to support a welfare state.
The problem is the country can no longer afford it.
To be fair most of the Tories here who were up last night (Charles, Morris Dancer and others, difficult to portray as Comrade Blimps) also recoiled from the Mail headline.
There is obviously an issue to discuss - how much welfare can we afford, and what is the trade-off between helping unnecessarily and leaving deserving cases to rot. But the question is not usefully illuminated by Philpott - all the headline does, possibly, is sell newspapers.
Politically speaking, I'm not sure this is the vote-gathering goldmine that Mr Osborne supposes and I doubt if he welcomes the Mail outriders. There is pretty broad support for curbing "welfare excesses" but not for a political civil war demonising people on welfare, which is where this sort of headline takes us. And as usual, people who are actually losing out feel much more strongly. The political risk is that it hardens the Labour vote in a notoriously low-turnout voter segment while nobody else feels sufficiently affected to change their votes. Today's YouGov (13 point Labour lead) doesn't suggest the strategy is paying off, yet anyway.
I am surprised that it has the capacity, especially on this forum, to be shocking.
You're speaking to entirely the wrong person if you think I am shocked at this. I could list some truly shocking behaviour from Dacre, the Mail and others, but not on here.
The fact that papers (online in particular) use controversy commentators as a click magnet is somewhat different to using the full force of a print edition's front page. You misjudge that and down the line it will cost you, regardless of the initial splash sales. Dacre might as well get it out of his system now because he's fighting a losing battle as are all the print editions. Not just for profit but for influence. That is primarily what is most upsetting Dacre and really causing the Mail's eccentric hysteria right now.
Welfare is now a negative word. Huge problem for the left.
As an aside, when did we start talking about "welfare" (aside from welfare state)? This seems more political shorthand imported from the United States, along with "tax and spend".
I am "elite" it seems, though then it goes on to say that many in this group went to private school and like classical music, not true of me. The last slice of the pie was near empty, I seem to be the prole elite.
Elitism seems to be driven by after tax income. You must have an income of over £100K after tax. The rest doesn't matter. You are elite. I am established middle class.
Ah, I misread the income and put in pretax rather than after tax, am now officially established middle class. My time in the elite was brief but pleasant. Social mobility or what?
How do the govts reforms impact on the "family" in this case? From what I can see both women were working, Osborne will continue to pay child benefit for an infinite number of children, housing benefit is going up and not down.
Unless I'm missing something they wouldn't have been impacted by anything the govt is doing would they?
Their CB would be limited to a 1% rise this year - so a real terms cut.
Don't know enough about the benefit cap to comment - would they get more than £26k ?
Welfare is now a negative word. Huge problem for the left.
As an aside, when did we start talking about "welfare" (aside from welfare state)? This seems more political shorthand imported from the United States, along with "tax and spend".
Well with "welfare" being a dirty word and "state" becoming a dirty word - two wrongs don't make a right.
Meanwhile lefty commentators are getting worried about do nothing rED.
"a welfare crisis engulfing those whom Labour was created to defend demands more than rhetoric. The issue that the leadership cannot duck is what it would do for all citizens, not least low earners now at their wits’ end.
As one senior Miliband loyalist says: “If we in Labour cannot say what a Labour government would mean, then the question is unanswered and unanswerable.”"
How do the govts reforms impact on the "family" in this case? From what I can see both women were working, Osborne will continue to pay child benefit for an infinite number of children, housing benefit is going up and not down.
Unless I'm missing something they wouldn't have been impacted by anything the govt is doing would they?
Their CB would be limited to a 1% rise this year - so a real terms cut.
Don't know enough about the benefit cap to comment - would they get more than £26k ?
They were getting £60 000, but may have counted as two families. Not sure how it works to apply the family test to the Phillpotts. This would be without tax, perhaps equivalent to £90 000 income before tax.
Welfare is now a negative word. Huge problem for the left.
As an aside, when did we start talking about "welfare" (aside from welfare state)? This seems more political shorthand imported from the United States, along with "tax and spend".
As another aside, how did Romney's campaign trying to villify and demonise a huge section of the population go down with the voters over there? Stuarttruth seemed to think a Republican landslide was nailed on. So it must be a good idea.
I came in the elite-more through savings than income. I'm not private school educated but like my culture - which also seems to make a difference. I was born in the w/c in NE England so looks like I beat the system:)
Pork - Tory has been a negative word for the BBC, Granuaid etc for 30 yrs.
Harry - Theresa May, nasty party, Cammie, detox strategy, etc. The problem is self-inflicted. By all means continue with that 'master strategy' but remember what happened the last time. There are far worse things than simply losing one election as IDS in particular will tell you.
That Philpott is vile scum is beyond doubt. That Philpott played the system, by his evil manipulation of the vulnerable women that he latched onto is also beyond doubt. Whilst we can say that the system in this case was complicit in allowing Philpott to think he could drink, shag, and do whatever else he wanted, all on the taxpayers quid, I'd be unhappy at any political party that tried to use him as a posterboy to reinforce whatever case they are trying to push. I'd also think less of PBers, who also tried to use him in such a way.
As for the Daily Mail, I'm disappointed in them. There isn't a single picture of Doutzen Kroes in stockings on their site today.
Pork - Tory has been a negative word for the BBC, Granuaid etc for 30 yrs.
Harry - Theresa May, nasty party, Cammie, detox strategy, etc. The problem is self-inflicted. By all means continue with that 'master strategy' but remember what happened the last time. There are far worse things than simply losing one election as IDS in particular will tell you.
Totally agree Pork - look at UKIP - totally unashamed of what they believe and reaping the benefits.
I saw a huge fuss on Twitter last night about the Mail splashpage and frankly didn't think it was much different from many of their others.
I still recall the ENORMOUS fuss when they printed the pix of alleged Stephen Lawrence killers and the view was that they'd ruined the chances of a fair trial - well as we know now - it was largely their doing that forced the issue and more people were convicted as a result.
The Mail knows very well how to grab an issue and make it big by ruffling feathers. I suspect sales today to be up - they've made themselves the news again and scored a direct hit on the benefit class which many working/middle class readers have no respect for at all.
Let's not forget that the Mail has a very substantial number of Labour and LD readers - those who sneer at it or think its pro-Tory are playing to their own prejudices. It's massively popular, knows how to talk hot-button language and appeals to those from a wide range of political colours who are socially conservative in outlook.
Interestingly - if one reads the comments under their stories - when the Mail gets it wrong, they get panned for it especially when it looks like they're picking on someone who's used as a freak story, but probably mentally ill.
Three of the leading Labour supporting columnists Rentoul, Rawnsley and now Riddell have written this week about the problem of Ed Milliband having no coherent policies. Maybe, OGH that should be the next thread?
Totally agree Pork - look at UKIP - totally unashamed of what they believe and reaping the benefits.
Don't think the alleged Farage comments on certain voters of colour quite qualifies there. Be that as it may in May they should get a sizeable protest vote. Not quite the same as power any decade soon but it's certainly far better than an electoral pasting at the locals.
If Cammie had a competent chancellor then Farage could be easily dismissed since what Farage believes economicaly is somewhat more nebulous and likely less populist than his easy to process anti-immigration and EU stances. The thing is Cammie doesn't have a competent chancellor. He has AAA toxic liability in Osbrowne. So Farage will not feel the heat on any of his weak policy areas any time soon. Nor will tories banging on about immigration or the EU do anything other than help Farage. As should be obvious to everyone by now.
Three of the leading Labour supporting columnists Rentoul, Rawnsley and now Riddell have written this week about the problem of Ed Milliband having no coherent policies. Maybe, OGH that should be the next thread?
I think OGH is doing the lefties a massive disservice with his no rEd is crap thread policy. They are all snuggled under the duvet until Jan 2015. Not sure this isn't by design
As an aside, why do the CoE Bishops have nothing to say about Philpott and his arrangements? 40 or more years ago they would have. Yet today they would rather attack the spare room subsidy and not fecklessness. They also were very quiet about the grooming and rape of girls in various communities.
Hmm sadly our judicial system won't allow Philpot to be burnt alive as he probably should be, but I sincerely hope the judge imposes a life sentence with a minimum term of 30 years or so.
Pork - was commenting more about attitude rather than competence or policy - but if it allowed you to get your CoTE soundbytes that will be repeated 20x a day on here by you and your cousin tim then you are welcome.
Three of the leading Labour supporting columnists Rentoul, Rawnsley and now Riddell have written this week about the problem of Ed Milliband having no coherent policies. Maybe, OGH that should be the next thread?
The best rated readers comment on a member of the benefit class in the Scotsman newspaper.
So let's start by talking about someone who lives off the state and has little experience of the world of work you and I know. He is 58 years old and has suckled upon the publicly-funded teat for most of his life.
He's signed on the dole. He's had four children and received child benefit for all of them. He has put them each through private school, too.
His wife hasn't worked since they married, except for 15 months in which he got her a job paid by the taxpayer.
He and his colleagues eat and drink food subsidised by the tax payer in a palace we pay for. He is driven around in a car he does not own and has not paid for - we did.
And when he is too old to 'work' any more he will receive a better pension than most of the rest of us - which again we paid for.
He started out at the age of 21 with six years of taxpayer-funded military service, during which he acted as bag-carrier to a Major-General. Then in 1981, aged 27, he left the Army and signed on the dole for several months.
He then began a period of ordinary work based upon the skills he had gained at the taxpayer's expense, and worked in sales for arms dealer GEC-Marconi.
He then moved on to a property firm, where he was made redundant after six months, and then sold gun-related magazines for Jane's Information Group.
After 11 years of this not too glittering a career he succeeded in once again boarding the publicly-funded gravy train in 1992.
In the intervening 20 years he has been paid by the taxpayer every year more money than most of the rest of us manage to earn. He has managed to boost it up to more than six figures for a few years here and there by being more pompous than the others in his position.
In 2001 he helped his unemployed wife to have a suckle, arranging for her to be paid £15,000 a year to be his diary secretary. (The Newsnight TV programme pulled a story that seemingly alleged she didnt actually do anything).
These days he is given the grand total of near £150,000 a year from the taxpayer.
He lives for free in a £2million Tudor farmhouse on his father-in-law's ancestral estate in Buckinghamshire.
He has three acres of land, a tennis court, swimming pool and some orchards, which is not bad for a life paid for by the state.
'Who is this parasite?' you might cry. 'Tell us his name, let the authorities know his address. Let's get this guzzler out of the cushy life and show him what life is like for the rest of us,earning £7 an hour with a rise once every eight years and a miserly pension if we're lucky.'
His name is Iain Duncan Smith, and his address is: Palace of Westminster, LondonSW1A 0AA.
He is disgusting and a far far bigger leech on your money than the worst dole scrounger you can think of and twice as pointless.
Let's not forget that the Mail has a very substantial number of Labour and LD readers - those who sneer at it or think its pro-Tory are playing to their own prejudices. It's massively popular, knows how to talk hot-button language and appeals to those from a wide range of political colours who are socially conservative in outlook.
The Mail is the favourite read of Lib Dem voters. FACT.
Harry - If you don't like soundbites then an incompetent second rate Blair impersonator like Cammie is hardly likely to meet your approval in the 'aspiration nation' either, is it?
One of the themes of Mary Riddell's Telegraph column is that Ed should be fighting welfare cuts and changes harder.... PS can the Telegraph ever be labelled as the Torygraph?
I think where the Mail is OTT is to conflate welfarism with criminality.
But where they are spot on is to conflate welfarism (or at least welfare as a lifestyle and abuse of a system intended as a safety net not a lifestyle) with the economic and moral decline of our country. To have 17 kids and an income of over 60k paid all paid for by others is indeed an outrage. Philpott is a parasite and there are far too many like him.
The left will absolutely detest the direction the welfare debate is taking because it pits the working poor against the idle poor. And the larger and much more righteous group of the working poor are not welfarism fans AT ALL. Cutting welfare for the idle poor is very popular with them. 'Fop' Osborne's speech yesterday was very well received. That does not compute inside Polly's head or at Islington dinner parties. But it is where the large majority of Middle England lies.
The problem is that welfare is not just being cut for the idle poor. The majority of those affected by Osborne's changes are in work. Have you any proof at all that working people on benefits want to have them taken away?
Therein lies the problem. What kind of state is the country in when people working get benefits. The whole system is broken.
The use of a single extreme case and hyperbole to denigrate a class of people.
I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!
When did tim and Mick_Pork start working for the Daily Mail?
Link and proof dear? Or are you as full of it as Dacre and the Mail?
Just so you finally understand, a cabinet is not a 'class'. It's a very small coterie of people who wield huge power and influence so cannot possibly be described as vulnerable or 'millions'.
It's amusing to see the left incandescent with indignation at the discovery that the Mail is similar to the Guardian in using individual cases to push a political agenda, vilify whole groups, and pander to the prejudices of its readers. Polly Toynbee does it every week.
I suspect tomorrow's Daily Mail front page will be about the sentences handed out today.
What sentences are you expecting, as far as I can se from the CPS guidelines a life sentence is appropriate here ? Is this Manslaughter - Unlawful act ?
What I find so fascinating about those who rubbish the Mail is:
a) How often they quote it on here
b) How they tell us all their readers are stupid despite it having a high % of ABC1
c) How they claim it's mindless pap, yet are simultaneously scared of it's agenda
d) Often cite that it was once decades ago quite keen on Nazis or something I really can't be excited about
I find it all highly instructive - they sneer at it and dismiss it whilst fearing it - because it says the unsayable rather too often for their liking.
Philpott is unique in his utter vileness, but there's no doubt this country has a dysfunctional, welfare dependent underclass some of which see's children as a commodity and as a way of getting money and house's from the government.
If The Mail's headline helps to start a debate on what we as a country are going to do about the "Jeremy Kyle" generation (maybe there's nothing we CAN do) then its probably no bad thing.
Let's not forget that the Mail has a very substantial number of Labour and LD readers - those who sneer at it or think its pro-Tory are playing to their own prejudices. It's massively popular, knows how to talk hot-button language and appeals to those from a wide range of political colours who are socially conservative in outlook.
The Mail is the favourite read of Lib Dem voters. FACT.
Not correct by a long way. See this table from Ipsos-MORI
I suspect tomorrow's Daily Mail front page will be about the sentences handed out today.
What sentences are you expecting, as far as I can se from the CPS guidelines a life sentence is appropriate here ? Is this Manslaughter - Unlawful act ?
I have no expectations on sentencing, as I've never dealt with a manslaughter case.
However according to the Times he could be out in 10 to 15 years.
If it is say 10 years, then you're going to get the inevitable headlines about it being 1.66 years per child.
Also I suspect it will lead to a debate about consecutive sentencing vs concurrent sentencing.
Indeed. It's a well known condition called Mentionitis - when someone spontaneously introduces a person or theme into a conversation or seeks to associate them with the topic in hand.
Usually this is a dead giveaway when someone has a crush on another, is having an affair or is not-so-secretly sensitive about an issue and attempts to project it onto another. A bit like O'Bigot and not being gay.
"He spoke up for the Briddish, for people ooh wanna gedd on, for people ooh doan wanna be oudda work. It was iz job da make sure they be bedder off in work. Things ud be bedder fa business, too, now he’d rejuiced corporation tax da twenny-three per cent."
Let's not forget that the Mail has a very substantial number of Labour and LD readers - those who sneer at it or think its pro-Tory are playing to their own prejudices. It's massively popular, knows how to talk hot-button language and appeals to those from a wide range of political colours who are socially conservative in outlook.
The Mail is the favourite read of Lib Dem voters. FACT.
FALSE , you would not recognise a fact if it smacked you in the face .
c) How they claim it's mindless pap, yet are simultaneously scared of it's agenda
It's online edition is celeb gossip and boobjob heavy for a reason. Heady stuff for those used to cat tweets but not exactly the discourse of anyone serious. Dacre is the one who is scared and you don't have to look very hard to see why. PM's once slavishly did his bidding at the click of his fingers. Not any more and never again.
I find it all highly instructive - they sneer at it and dismiss it whilst fearing it - because it says the unsayable rather too often for their liking.
Yet you show no sign of learning whatsoever and never do. Your previous 'outrage' at victims is shown to be specious nonsense when you can happily join in the smearing of millions of innocent people on welfare with the actions of one deranged childkiller.
The 'unsayable' is merely a polite way of avoiding calling this mail headline bullshit. Which is what it so clearly is to anyone with even a modicum of common sense.
BTW: How can the Independent survive? It's lost two-thirds of its readers in the last two years. Just 76,802 readers currently. That's about the same as this site.
RT @EdConwaySky: As if Cypriot savers weren't already suffering enough, tax rate on interest income is now doubling to 30%, according to the IMF statement
rcs, the Inde is still in trouble. It's being propped up by the Evening Standard, IIRC. The "i" just doesn't make enough money with such a low cover price.
There is a sexism and class angle here as one would expect from the Mail. His wife and his mistress both worked which is as many workers as one would expect in a family with eleven children and one parent would be expected to stay at home for the children.
Compare to any of the ultra orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods in London Leeds or Manchester where the vast majority of families will have between 10-14 children with one parent not working and the family receiving the same child benefits as the Philpotts. Do we expect Paul Dacre to launch a crusade against all large families?
Let's not forget that the Mail has a very substantial number of Labour and LD readers - those who sneer at it or think its pro-Tory are playing to their own prejudices. It's massively popular, knows how to talk hot-button language and appeals to those from a wide range of political colours who are socially conservative in outlook.
The Mail is the favourite read of Lib Dem voters. FACT.
Not correct by a long way. See this table from Ipsos-MORI
You need the circulation figures as well though to fact check that one. For instance in the US more liberals/democrats watch Fox News even though they are a smallish % due to the large leadership in viewers it has over other news channels.
There is a sexism and class angle here as one would expect from the Mail. His wife and his mistress both worked which is as many workers as one would expect in a family with eleven children where one parent would be expected to be at home for the children.
Compare to any of the ultra orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods in London Leeds or Manchester where the vast majority of families will have between 10-14 children with one parent not working and the family receiving the same child benefits as the Phillpots. Do we expect Paul Dacre to launch a crusade against large families?
The Mail didn't introduce a race angle though - luckily on PB we have you to do that for us.
@Grandiose: interesting. I was shocked to see just how well 'i' is doing, however. It's doing over 300,000 copies a day - that's 50% more than the Guardian, more than the FT and isn't that far behind the Times. (In fact, 'i' + The Independent = 370,000, against 399,000 for The Times.)
I suspect tomorrow's Daily Mail front page will be about the sentences handed out today.
What sentences are you expecting, as far as I can se from the CPS guidelines a life sentence is appropriate here ? Is this Manslaughter - Unlawful act ?
I have no expectations on sentencing, as I've never dealt with a manslaughter case.
However according to the Times he could be out in 10 to 15 years.
If it is say 10 years, then you're going to get the inevitable headlines about it being 1.66 years per child.
Also I suspect it will lead to a debate about consecutive sentencing vs concurrent sentencing.
Well then the papers should go after that one with a huge hammer. 10-15 years and out for that is disgusting.
@rcs1000 Also that's the number of copies, I think the number of paid copies is lower. But "readership" is a little misleading, because they'll be read by more than one person (whereas with websites double counting is far more likely).
It wouldn't surprise me too much if PB got a not dissimilar readership, all in all. I personally like to boast that articles I've written for Wikipedia get a higher readership than the Independent on Sunday (are they on 7 days now?).
I can't abide concurrent sentencing - whilst the US version of 856yrs in jail is just silly - we have the opposite problem. If your actions result in the death of 6 of your own kids because you were cynically attempting to manipulate the system by starting a fire - well you don't deserve another life bar one in prison.
@Plato "I find it all highly instructive - they sneer at it and dismiss it whilst fearing it"
Just like they do with Osborne
I'm sure there's nothing little Ed and labour feared more than being gifted a 10 point lead by the incompetent Osbrowne. Unless they fear a scottish tory surge of course. Who doesn't? ;^)
Interesting internals in today's YouGov (which I see tim has again has had to present as "Labour lead among women" as the bigger gender gap is in Labour (41/46) than Conservative (30/29)) - transparent tim donchajustluviim!
On UKIP voters some clear outliers -issues facing the country UKIP (diff vs OA)
There is a sexism and class angle here as one would expect from the Mail. His wife and his mistress both worked which is as many workers as one would expect in a family with eleven children where one parent would be expected to be at home for the children.
Compare to any of the ultra orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods in London Leeds or Manchester where the vast majority of families will have between 10-14 children with one parent not working and the family receiving the same child benefits as the Phillpots. Do we expect Paul Dacre to launch a crusade against large families?
The Mail didn't introduce a race angle though - luckily on PB we have you to do that for us.
He didn't introduce a race angle. He introduced a religion angle. Anyway, is he even correct on the facts? Do most orthodox Jewish families get similar welfare to the Philpots? I was always under the impression they were mainly self-funded, but am happy to be corrected by someone that knows more.
In times past Philpott would have been a Fagin type character sending his brood to pickpocket and his women to sell themselves for his gain. There is nothing new under the sun (or indeed in it) and the welfare state does not create monsters like this.
What it undeniably does, along with an extremely expensive but apparently ineffective social work system, is create different opportunities to exploit. To that very limited extent the Mail probably does have a point but it's a tainted and distorted one. Those poor children. What sort of a chance did the welfare state give them?
Fraser Nelson @frasernelson 40m The most reasoned critique of the so-called "bedroom tax" is from Brian Wilson in the Scotsman http://flip.it/jzAzy .
The key statistics for Danny, the MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, appeared in Monday’s Scotsman story about a) the number of tenants who will be penalised by the bedroom tax and b) the number of smaller houses available to them. In the Highland Council area, the first answer is 2,000 and the second is 164.
tim 8:58AM
Have you not heard of people doing mutual exchanges, this is where people swap accommodation. Councils and large RSLs all have a housing stock where one and two bedroom properties are the most prevelant and three/four bedrooms make up a small percentage of their stock.
The most common feature of any transfer/mutual exchange register is that of people with children in one/two bedroom properties needing a move to larger accommodation due to having more children.
That is why some of the examples of people affected by this benefit change on the news has just been such rubbish. There was a single chap living in a three bedroom property by himself who said that he could not afford to pay any money towards his rent and hence would become homeless. What nonsense! I can guarantee that in his area there would be hundreds of people on the mutual exchange register in very overcrowded accommodation desperate to move into his larger accommodation. He could then move into the smaller accommodation and would not have to pay anything to his rent. It really is quite easy and it is typical lazy journalism that this is not mentioned, and it is standard of the tripe that you spout on here that you have not pointed this out.
I do find it interesting that, even though the IMF has imposed very similar conditions on countries in the past, no-one accuses that institution of trampelling all over countries sovereignty. See this paper - http://www2.gsu.edu/~econtv/ajes.PDF for details as regards the conditions the IMF put on its aid to Russia in 1998. Conditions on some Latin American economies, btw, were significantly more onerous.
When a country goes through a financial crisis and is unable to pay its debts (or service its current obligations even before interest in the case of Greece), then pretty much the only institution willing to make loans in the IMF (plus, in the case of Europe, the Eurozone itself.) Is it right that the IMF/the Eurozone applies conditions? Is it a breach of those countries' democracies?
Would it be democratically fair if we (as IMF contributors) were forced to give money to countries who refused to reform?
Countries who do not wish to follow IMF/Eurozone conditions for bail-outs are free to turn them down- as is their democratic right.
But they can't expect low interest loans in those circumstances.
(This is not an argument about whether Greece or Spain or Portugal or Cyprus would have been better off in or out of the Eurozone, or whether it would be better for them to simply default and leave now. It is solely about the question about whether money lenders are allowed to attach conditions to loans. I say 'yes they can', and that we have been complicit and supporters of such conditionality when it came from the IMF and was directed towards - say - Russia. Why is such conditionality now wrong when it is directed towards a Eurozone economy?)
How do the govts reforms impact on the "family" in this case? From what I can see both women were working, Osborne will continue to pay child benefit for an infinite number of children, housing benefit is going up and not down.
Unless I'm missing something they wouldn't have been impacted by anything the govt is doing would they?
Maybe not. I don't know enough about the circumstances, but possibly the £26K limit would have kicked in. However, that isn't really the point: it's the wider question of whether providing oodles of dosh to finance dysfunctional families, with perverse incentives to have more kids who are statistically likely to have dysfunctional lives, is humane and sensible, let alone a good use of scarce resources.
I can't abide concurrent sentencing - whilst the US version of 856yrs in jail is just silly - we have the opposite problem. If your actions result in the death of 6 of your own kids because you were cynically attempting to manipulate the system by starting a fire - well you don't deserve another life bar one in prison.
I've never met anyone who supports concurrent sentencing. It just shows how out of touch our political class are that this bizarre part of the legal system remains on the books. It seems like the sort of thing either the Tories or UKIP could make into a popular policy. Presumably not the Lib Dems though, as they instinctively want to reduce the punishment for criminals, be it in a logical or illogical way.
@Plato It's not concurrent sentencing, per se, because this only operates fully where you're charged with some lesser offences. Most lesser offences are dropped before trial anyway. With their manslaughter charges, they''ll all be taken into account. If you feel the sentence is too low, then the answer really is that the term in prison was not sufficiently inflated by each subsequent death. Granted, that looks like concurrentism, but there's still scope for being harsher.
I can't abide concurrent sentencing - whilst the US version of 856yrs in jail is just silly - we have the opposite problem. If your actions result in the death of 6 of your own kids because you were cynically attempting to manipulate the system by starting a fire - well you don't deserve another life bar one in prison.
I've never met anyone who supports concurrent sentencing.
Pleasure to meet you, I'm someone who supports concurrent sentencing in a lot of circumstances.
@Socrates, I must admit, the idea of concurrent sentencing perplexes me too. Either give people a sentence or don't, but don't pretend you're giving one while making it 'concurrent'.
@Socrates: personally, all I care about is lowering the amount of crime in a cost-efficient way. It seems a little more measurement of the best way to achieve this, and a little less political point scoring would be the best way forward.
"As I wrote before, the reasons are unclear – most polling does not actually show very much contrast between the political views of men and women. They think the same issues are important and generally give similar answers, except on a few specific issues like military action, nuclear power and weapons and gay marriage (women are more anti-war, more opposed to nuclear power and weapons and more pro-gay marriage)"
I see your point - but why aren't other offences added to the mix - it reminds me of burglars who are charged with 6 and ask for 189 others to be taken into account.
Sure it helps the police clear-up stats but does bugger all to fill the victims to feel justice is being done.
There is a massive gap between what some offenders do and what they get.
@tim They do seem to have a great deal of trouble realising that the bedroom tax was devised by the same master strategist who couldn't tax a pasty competently. They shall learn soon enough.
Comments
Mr Pork,
"Because the Dacre theory is that hysterical headlines sell papers no matter how ridiculous."
Well, he has a good track record in that respect - "good" in the sense of effective.
It's way over the top but even the BBC has gravitated slowly to more sensationalist stories. Headlines like "The Prime Minister will discuss the problem today with her Majesty the Queen" have gone forever.
A welfare state loses support when people think "I've being paying in all these years and then they say I'm not eligible" and instead think its 'people like them' benefiting.
The more I think about it the more I think Frank Field is right - universal benefits are required if people are to support a welfare state.
The problem is the country can no longer afford it.
I don't have an answer to this problem.
To be fair most of the Tories here who were up last night (Charles, Morris Dancer and others, difficult to portray as Comrade Blimps) also recoiled from the Mail headline.
There is obviously an issue to discuss - how much welfare can we afford, and what is the trade-off between helping unnecessarily and leaving deserving cases to rot. But the question is not usefully illuminated by Philpott - all the headline does, possibly, is sell newspapers.
Politically speaking, I'm not sure this is the vote-gathering goldmine that Mr Osborne supposes and I doubt if he welcomes the Mail outriders. There is pretty broad support for curbing "welfare excesses" but not for a political civil war demonising people on welfare, which is where this sort of headline takes us. And as usual, people who are actually losing out feel much more strongly. The political risk is that it hardens the Labour vote in a notoriously low-turnout voter segment while nobody else feels sufficiently affected to change their votes. Today's YouGov (13 point Labour lead) doesn't suggest the strategy is paying off, yet anyway.
I could list some truly shocking behaviour from Dacre, the Mail and others, but not on here.
The fact that papers (online in particular) use controversy commentators as a click magnet is somewhat different to using the full force of a print edition's front page. You misjudge that and down the line it will cost you, regardless of the initial splash sales. Dacre might as well get it out of his system now because he's fighting a losing battle as are all the print editions.
Not just for profit but for influence. That is primarily what is most upsetting Dacre and really causing the Mail's eccentric hysteria right now.
Because it isn't very nice to use mental disabilities to denigrate ones opponents.
Just saying like.
Leftard is a self-selecting collective noun for posters who routinely use "PB Tory" in a non-ironic sense
Don't know enough about the benefit cap to comment - would they get more than £26k ?
Bravo.
I can't claim credit for inventing it
Meanwhile lefty commentators are getting worried about do nothing rED.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9966730/A-welfare-crisis-engulfs-the-nation-but-Labour-sits-idly-by.html
"a welfare crisis engulfing those whom Labour was created to defend demands more than rhetoric. The issue that the leadership cannot duck is what it would do for all citizens, not least low earners now at their wits’ end.
As one senior Miliband loyalist says: “If we in Labour cannot say what a Labour government would mean, then the question is unanswered and unanswerable.”"
Unless you truly think tory is now a negative word. Huge problem for the right.
Leftard directly conflates mental illness with those of a left of centre viewpoint so equating both as equally 'silly' is simply wrong.
Certainly has drowned out coverage of Balls,not that many people would have been listening.
Daily Mail 2009 friend of Gordon = good.
Daily Mail 2013 welfare critic = bad.
By all means continue with that 'master strategy' but remember what happened the last time. There are far worse things than simply losing one election as IDS in particular will tell you.
Whilst we can say that the system in this case was complicit in allowing Philpott to think he could drink, shag, and do whatever else he wanted, all on the taxpayers quid, I'd be unhappy at any political party that tried to use him as a posterboy to reinforce whatever case they are trying to push. I'd also think less of PBers, who also tried to use him in such a way.
As for the Daily Mail, I'm disappointed in them. There isn't a single picture of Doutzen Kroes in stockings on their site today.
Can you manage a single thread without stalking me?
We know you can't do a whole day, but can you manage one thread?
I understand your constant demands for attention, creepy through they are, and I'm sorry, I'm just not that into you.
I still recall the ENORMOUS fuss when they printed the pix of alleged Stephen Lawrence killers and the view was that they'd ruined the chances of a fair trial - well as we know now - it was largely their doing that forced the issue and more people were convicted as a result.
The Mail knows very well how to grab an issue and make it big by ruffling feathers. I suspect sales today to be up - they've made themselves the news again and scored a direct hit on the benefit class which many working/middle class readers have no respect for at all.
Let's not forget that the Mail has a very substantial number of Labour and LD readers - those who sneer at it or think its pro-Tory are playing to their own prejudices. It's massively popular, knows how to talk hot-button language and appeals to those from a wide range of political colours who are socially conservative in outlook.
Interestingly - if one reads the comments under their stories - when the Mail gets it wrong, they get panned for it especially when it looks like they're picking on someone who's used as a freak story, but probably mentally ill.
Be that as it may in May they should get a sizeable protest vote. Not quite the same as power any decade soon but it's certainly far better than an electoral pasting at the locals.
If Cammie had a competent chancellor then Farage could be easily dismissed since what Farage believes economicaly is somewhat more nebulous and likely less populist than his easy to process anti-immigration and EU stances. The thing is Cammie doesn't have a competent chancellor. He has AAA toxic liability in Osbrowne. So Farage will not feel the heat on any of his weak policy areas any time soon. Nor will tories banging on about immigration or the EU do anything other than help Farage. As should be obvious to everyone by now.
RT @northlondon1: The General Medical Council buys £280,000 private medical insurance for its staff. #NHSfail, from the horses mouth. http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/revealed-gmc-pays-280000-a-year-on-private-health-insurance-for-its-staff/13257301.article#.UVvpI6PTW2d
@johnprescott
If outraged by the Daily Mail, tell the Chair of the PCC's Code of Practise Committee. He's Paul Dacre. Editor of the Daily Mail
I believe the most appropriate term may be,
URGH!
Having no principles is the new ideology.
Having no policies is the new politics.
I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!
When did tim and Mick_Pork start working for the Daily Mail?
So let's start by talking about someone who lives off the state and has little experience of the world of work you and I know. He is 58 years old and has suckled upon the publicly-funded teat for most of his life.
He's signed on the dole. He's had four children and received child benefit for all of them. He has put them each through private school, too.
His wife hasn't worked since they married, except for 15 months in which he got her a job paid by the taxpayer.
He and his colleagues eat and drink food subsidised by the tax payer in a palace we pay for. He is driven around in a car he does not own and has not paid for - we did.
And when he is too old to 'work' any more he will receive a better pension than most of the rest of us - which again we paid for.
He started out at the age of 21 with six years of taxpayer-funded military service, during which he acted as bag-carrier to a Major-General. Then in 1981, aged 27, he left the Army and signed on the dole for several months.
He then began a period of ordinary work based upon the skills he had gained at the taxpayer's expense, and worked in sales for arms dealer GEC-Marconi.
He then moved on to a property firm, where he was made redundant after six months, and then sold gun-related magazines for Jane's Information Group.
After 11 years of this not too glittering a career he succeeded in once again boarding the publicly-funded gravy train in 1992.
In the intervening 20 years he has been paid by the taxpayer every year more money than most of the rest of us manage to earn. He has managed to boost it up to more than six figures for a few years here and there by being more pompous than the others in his position.
In 2001 he helped his unemployed wife to have a suckle, arranging for her to be paid £15,000 a year to be his diary secretary. (The Newsnight TV programme pulled a story that seemingly alleged she didnt actually do anything).
These days he is given the grand total of near £150,000 a year from the taxpayer.
He lives for free in a £2million Tudor farmhouse on his father-in-law's ancestral estate in Buckinghamshire.
He has three acres of land, a tennis court, swimming pool and some orchards, which is not bad for a life paid for by the state.
'Who is this parasite?' you might cry. 'Tell us his name, let the authorities know his address. Let's get this guzzler out of the cushy life and show him what life is like for the rest of us,earning £7 an hour with a rise once every eight years and a miserly pension if we're lucky.'
His name is Iain Duncan Smith, and his address is: Palace of Westminster, LondonSW1A 0AA.
He is disgusting and a far far bigger leech on your money than the worst dole scrounger you can think of and twice as pointless.
Labour on the wrong side of public opinion again,no wonder they can't get past their blank piece of paper.
PS can the Telegraph ever be labelled as the Torygraph?
Just so you finally understand, a cabinet is not a 'class'. It's a very small coterie of people who wield huge power and influence so cannot possibly be described as vulnerable or 'millions'.
Though I would love to see you try.
a) How often they quote it on here
b) How they tell us all their readers are stupid despite it having a high % of ABC1
c) How they claim it's mindless pap, yet are simultaneously scared of it's agenda
d) Often cite that it was once decades ago quite keen on Nazis or something I really can't be excited about
I find it all highly instructive - they sneer at it and dismiss it whilst fearing it - because it says the unsayable rather too often for their liking.
"I find it all highly instructive - they sneer at it and dismiss it whilst fearing it"
Just like they do with Osborne
If The Mail's headline helps to start a debate on what we as a country are going to do about the "Jeremy Kyle" generation (maybe there's nothing we CAN do) then its probably no bad thing.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2476&view=wide
However according to the Times he could be out in 10 to 15 years.
If it is say 10 years, then you're going to get the inevitable headlines about it being 1.66 years per child.
Also I suspect it will lead to a debate about consecutive sentencing vs concurrent sentencing.
'The General Medical Council buys £280,000 private medical insurance for its staff'
The GMC does a Ratner,you couldn't make it up.
I wonder how many other unions dodge the queues
Indeed. It's a well known condition called Mentionitis - when someone spontaneously introduces a person or theme into a conversation or seeks to associate them with the topic in hand.
Usually this is a dead giveaway when someone has a crush on another, is having an affair or is not-so-secretly sensitive about an issue and attempts to project it onto another. A bit like O'Bigot and not being gay.
"He spoke up for the Briddish, for people ooh wanna gedd on, for people ooh doan wanna be oudda work. It was iz job da make sure they be bedder off in work. Things ud be bedder fa business, too, now he’d rejuiced corporation tax da twenny-three per cent."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9967688/Sketch-Mockney-George-Osborne-plans-a-bedder-Briddain.html
To calculate 'favourite' you would need to multiply circulation, by percentage of said paper voting for the party.
So: The Sun is the favourite paper of LibDem voters (2.4m circulation x 18%), and The Daily Mail (1.8m x 16%) is second favourite.
While 40+% of Independent voters are LibDems, there are few Independent readers.
Sorry, I won't do it again.
FALSE , you would not recognise a fact if it smacked you in the face .
It's the 'or something' that truly conveys the appropriate response to Nazi's at the time. Yet you show no sign of learning whatsoever and never do. Your previous 'outrage' at victims is shown to be specious nonsense when you can happily join in the smearing of millions of innocent people on welfare with the actions of one deranged childkiller.
The 'unsayable' is merely a polite way of avoiding calling this mail headline bullshit. Which is what it so clearly is to anyone with even a modicum of common sense.
Compare to any of the ultra orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods in London Leeds or Manchester where the vast majority of families will have between 10-14 children with one parent not working and the family receiving the same child benefits as the Philpotts. Do we expect Paul Dacre to launch a crusade against all large families?
Using those tables and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation we can quickly work out "The Sun" was the most sold paper to Lib Dems in 2010.
0.18 * 3,006,565 = 541,181.
Mail:
2,120,347 * 0.18 = 381,662
So yes, TC is wrong its not the Mail - it is the Sun.
Indeed! Cyprus seems to be right up the creek without a canoe nevermind a paddle
RT @BrunoBrussels: Chilling #EU-IMF words for #Cyprus - "the social welfare system will be reviewed", such is an end to sovereignty in the #eurozone
It wouldn't surprise me too much if PB got a not dissimilar readership, all in all. I personally like to boast that articles I've written for Wikipedia get a higher readership than the Independent on Sunday (are they on 7 days now?).
I can't abide concurrent sentencing - whilst the US version of 856yrs in jail is just silly - we have the opposite problem. If your actions result in the death of 6 of your own kids because you were cynically attempting to manipulate the system by starting a fire - well you don't deserve another life bar one in prison.
I'm sure there's nothing little Ed and labour feared more than being gifted a 10 point lead by the incompetent Osbrowne. Unless they fear a scottish tory surge of course. Who doesn't? ;^)
On UKIP voters some clear outliers -issues facing the country UKIP (diff vs OA)
Immigration: 86 (+31)
Economy: 73(-4)
Europe: 44 (+27)
Health :24 (-10)
On issues facing you/your family, 'immigration" holds up, Europe falls from #3 to #6
Economy : 62 (-4)
Immigration : 42 (+27)
Pensions : 34 (-2)
.
.
Europe : 26 (+19)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/he8ilqtkiv/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-020413.pdf
What it undeniably does, along with an extremely expensive but apparently ineffective social work system, is create different opportunities to exploit. To that very limited extent the Mail probably does have a point but it's a tainted and distorted one. Those poor children. What sort of a chance did the welfare state give them?
The most reasoned critique of the so-called "bedroom tax" is from Brian Wilson in the Scotsman http://flip.it/jzAzy .
The key statistics for Danny, the MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, appeared in Monday’s Scotsman story about a) the number of tenants who will be penalised by the bedroom tax and b) the number of smaller houses available to them. In the Highland Council area, the first answer is 2,000 and the second is 164.
tim
8:58AM
Have you not heard of people doing mutual exchanges, this is where people swap accommodation. Councils and large RSLs all have a housing stock where one and two bedroom properties are the most prevelant and three/four bedrooms make up a small percentage of their stock.
The most common feature of any transfer/mutual exchange register is that of people with children in one/two bedroom properties needing a move to larger accommodation due to having more children.
That is why some of the examples of people affected by this benefit change on the news has just been such rubbish. There was a single chap living in a three bedroom property by himself who said that he could not afford to pay any money towards his rent and hence would become homeless. What nonsense! I can guarantee that in his area there would be hundreds of people on the mutual exchange register in very overcrowded accommodation desperate to move into his larger accommodation. He could then move into the smaller accommodation and would not have to pay anything to his rent. It really is quite easy and it is typical lazy journalism that this is not mentioned, and it is standard of the tripe that you spout on here that you have not pointed this out.
I do find it interesting that, even though the IMF has imposed very similar conditions on countries in the past, no-one accuses that institution of trampelling all over countries sovereignty. See this paper - http://www2.gsu.edu/~econtv/ajes.PDF for details as regards the conditions the IMF put on its aid to Russia in 1998. Conditions on some Latin American economies, btw, were significantly more onerous.
When a country goes through a financial crisis and is unable to pay its debts (or service its current obligations even before interest in the case of Greece), then pretty much the only institution willing to make loans in the IMF (plus, in the case of Europe, the Eurozone itself.) Is it right that the IMF/the Eurozone applies conditions? Is it a breach of those countries' democracies?
Would it be democratically fair if we (as IMF contributors) were forced to give money to countries who refused to reform?
Countries who do not wish to follow IMF/Eurozone conditions for bail-outs are free to turn them down- as is their democratic right.
But they can't expect low interest loans in those circumstances.
(This is not an argument about whether Greece or Spain or Portugal or Cyprus would have been better off in or out of the Eurozone, or whether it would be better for them to simply default and leave now. It is solely about the question about whether money lenders are allowed to attach conditions to loans. I say 'yes they can', and that we have been complicit and supporters of such conditionality when it came from the IMF and was directed towards - say - Russia. Why is such conditionality now wrong when it is directed towards a Eurozone economy?)
RT @ukcrime: Cautions for serious and repeat offenders under review
http://crimeandjustice.co.uk/?p=19808
"As I wrote before, the reasons are unclear – most polling does not actually show very much contrast between the political views of men and women. They think the same issues are important and generally give similar answers, except on a few specific issues like military action, nuclear power and weapons and gay marriage (women are more anti-war, more opposed to nuclear power and weapons and more pro-gay marriage)"
Why are Labour doing badly among men?
I see your point - but why aren't other offences added to the mix - it reminds me of burglars who are charged with 6 and ask for 189 others to be taken into account.
Sure it helps the police clear-up stats but does bugger all to fill the victims to feel justice is being done.
There is a massive gap between what some offenders do and what they get.