Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
I'd want somewhere up North, so York seems like an attractive option. Just need a spur off the M1, and a bit of an extension of HS2! Would also be a nice coup for the Yorkists after their humiliating defeat in '85.
York certainly appeals to my Jacobite sensibilities with the white rose/cockade.
then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.
Indeed. If there's a cap from an organisation - then say GE funding will have to be from hundreds of small units - say CLPs or whatever.
Trying to remove the money from politics is impossible - like water, it will find a way to reach its destination point and leak out.
Hint: look at where Ireland and Iceland are, relative to the Yookay.
Jim Murphy slagging off Ireland, Norway, Iceland etc was a great chortle here at PB at the time. Not so funny now, huh?
Swedie-boy,
You've been away, so may be out-off-the-loop: Check PPP, GNI, NNI for comparisons.* As the Oirish Finance Minister admits actual income in The Republic is about 70% of the headline figure. **
* I believe Neil offers remedial classes for you and your ilk. ** See t'Economist.
With Parliament rising for the summer next week, it looks like the PM is packing in as much as possible before everyone goes for a break.
I’m hearing a mini-reshuffle is expected next week now (with perhaps only 8 or so posts at sub-Cabinet level changing). Tuesday, Thursday (when the House formally rises) and Friday are all mooted as possible days for the announcement.
Watch for some rising stars to get advancement and some of the older guard to realise their time is up.
More importantly, a limited Cabinet reshuffle is expected to take place next spring to get the Coaliton teams ready for the election. Women will be a priority. The bookies should cut their odds on Liz Truss getting a promotion.
My reading is that the Tories need constant poll leads from firms like ICM of 7%+ before securing an overall majority comes into the frame.
Nah, there's only one day on which it matters. The polling two years beforehand takes into account all sorts of factors that will have changed by then, from it not being a *real* poll taken after real scrutiny has been given to the various parties and leaders, to the improvements in the economy that are likely to occur between now and 2015.
To put the scale of change into context, the Tories only need a net swing of about a third of a percentage point per month from Labour (though some of that would also come from UKIP to Con and Lab to LD), in the 22 months between now and the election to be in majority-winning territory.
Ref the LD / UKIP figures, they're probably right. The chances of the Lib Dems securing an overall majority are actually much less than the 0.5% quoted. I cannot think of any credible scenario by which they will gain support on 2010 after the events of the last three years (they may well gain some back between now and 2015 but not the full 10-15% they've lost since last time). By contrast, in bad times, there is an outside chance that a populist party *with no historic failure behind it* could capitalise on the simultaneous unpopularity of all three established parties and secure 25-30% at a general election, especially if their leader takes part in, and performs very well in, national debates. It is highly unlikely (the 100/1 is probably right), but it's not inconceivable.
Good point - it'd be interesting to know how much polls change DURING a GE campaign and if they changed the result from start to end - much, at all, the Party who won.
Having been on the receiving end of this - I concur.
"Patients' lives are being put at risk because thousands of healthcare assistants in hospitals across the country receive no training at all, an inquiry has found.
A third of trusts do not even check whether the assistants, who carry out a range of vital caring tasks instead of nurses, can read or write properly, according to a government-commissioned study. The only training some staff received before caring for the sick was watching a DVD.
Report author Camilla Cavendish warned the NHS is 'extremely bad at getting rid of people', damaging public confidence in the entire health service.
'I think what you need is proper leadership and management, which is in every care home and every hospital the employers are held responsible for the quality of those staff and they are held responsible for meeting certain basic standards of competence and care,; she told BBC Radio 4.
The situation is so dangerous because on most wards there are more healthcare assistants than fully-trained nurses.
The Cavendish review was ordered in the wake of the Mid Staffs scandal in which hundreds of patients are thought to have died needlessly as a result of poor care and neglect.
"But in the past incumbency works for the yellows much more than the other parties": very probably a side effect of being regarded as a party which would never be in power, therefore able to be very good constituency MPs because of lack of distractions, and not to blame for anything happening on a national scale.
"All healthcare assistants in hospitals and home helps employed by councils should undergo the same basic level of training so that the public could be confident they were ‘up to the job’, Miss Cavendish said.
They should be forced to go through a two-week induction and then undergo a six-month probation period, during which they are monitored to ensure they are providing decent care. If they fail, they would have to be sacked.
Miss Cavendish said there was a tendency to ‘understate’ what we regard as basic patient care, what it actually involves and how important it is.
‘I’m proposing a certificate of fundamental care which will be a basic minimum of care.. infection control, dementia awareness...
‘The best hospitals are giving people inductions and then having long probationary periods where members of staff are supervised. Everything I’ve recommended is based on what the best organisations are doing,’ she said.
She said there had to be a cultural change in the NHS towards the role of care staff.
‘There are 60 different titles for healthcare assistants – they should all be called nursing assistants, they should have clear job descriptions, and be held accountable against what they are responsible for.’
then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.
That's the risk Ed is taking And the idea that Trades Unions will break themselves up we'll file under "PB Tories on acid"
I don't think Dave wants a cap that forces political parties to build a mass membership though.
colour me sceptical. That Ed would risk Labour offending his paymasters when he's up to his eyes in debts is highly unlikely imo. I doubt he'll want his legacy to be the man who bankrupted Labour.
As for payments, that rather depends on how it's done and how legislation is written, there's lots of scope for creative accountancy. And still the biggest scope remains TU benefits in kind and how that will be accounted for. However Ed has remained helpfully obtuse on his plan so we'll just have to see how it develops. Maybe it will need some focus groups, or he'll publish the details at 2 a.m. on a rainy Tuesday after all the leader debates.
In Wales there is always pressure for more than the 60AMs as the case is made that the WG is not subject to enough scrutiny. There is of course resistance from the electorate to the employment of more politicians.
However, I see no reason that (if HoC business is organised correctly) that the 40 Welsh MPs could not sit as a form of Upper Chamber in Cardiff, in the rest of their time, and scrutinise the work of the WG and AMs.
At least it would stop my local MP from saying that topics like health, education etc are nothing to do with him as there are devolved matters. Of course the cost of these MPs could be split between Westminster and Cardiff.
Probably the same arrangement could work for Scotland (presuming no independence) and NI.
"The Civil Service is already 15 per cent smaller than at the time of the last election. It’s the smallest it has been since the Second World War. But with fewer staff, it’s doing more. This jump in productivity contrasts with the period from 1997 to 2010, when public sector productivity flat-lined...
None of these new proposals require legislation or affect the fundamental Civil Service values which are enshrined in law.
Our changes include:
- Allowing ministers to establish Extended Ministerial Offices (EMOs). The officials and special advisers in these offices can be personally appointed by the minister to whom they will be accountable. These offices will include career Civil Servants working alongside other officials, brought in from outside on fixed-term appointments to provide - for example - policy advice, as well as special advisers.
- Moving Permanent Secretaries on to fixed-tenure appointments. This will sharpen accountability and make a reality of an announcement that the then Prime Minister Tony Blair made back in 2004.
- Introducing cross-Whitehall functional leadership. These heads of function (such as HR and procurement) will help drive greater savings and strengthen the corporate culture.
Jack, I note that your preliminary Scotch ARSE is predicting a 60/40 victory for Alistair Darling's "Project Fear" campaign.
In that case, I assume that you consider Paddy Power's 5/6 on the YES vote percentage being lower that 41.5% to be money in the bank? How much have you put on?
Incorrect Stuart.
The 60/40 was my own initial view. My tartan ARSE, not a "Scotch ARSE", has yet to issue its first projection and will not do so until the autumn.
The PP 5/6 is value but I rarely tie money up in long date wagers and more personally the allowed stakes are often too paltry to bother !!
Re "the allowed stakes are often too paltry to bother": agreed. PP allow me pathetic sums on political bets, no doubt due to my wins at the Scottish GE 2011. Hills are only slightly better, but will only allow me 50 GBP on Yes.
Mind you, Victor Chandler takes the biscuit. They were in such a huff over my wins they closed my account.
"Over 80% of the money on Betfair is now 'professional', where there is no element of wanting a particular result."
I believe, David, that a high proportion is also robotic. Certainly in horse racing margins have been squeezed to the point where I find myself using the exchanges less and less.
Having lived and worked in York during the early days of PB having moving from Oxford I would back it.
A great city but like many of the places that I have lived/work in lost its league football in recent times. Same with Oxford, Cambridge and Bedfordshire (Luton). Oxford United only returned after I'd left the city.
Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
I'd want somewhere up North, so York seems like an attractive option. Just need a spur off the M1, and a bit of an extension of HS2! Would also be a nice coup for the Yorkists after their humiliating defeat in '85.
York certainly appeals to my Jacobite sensibilities with the white rose/cockade.
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe Well look at that, Tory Govt creating a more equal society than under Labour! MT @ITVLauraK ONS says income inequality at lowest since 1986
There was a fall in income inequality between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This was driven partly by earnings falling for higher income households and partly by changes in taxes and benefits. These changes include an increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to National Insurance Contributions and Child Tax Credits.
Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%).
Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income of £78,300 in 2011/12, 14 times greater than the poorest fifth, who had an average income of £5,400.
Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account, the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£57,300 per year and £15,800 respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.
The proportion of disposable income paid in indirect taxes increased across the income distribution in 2011/12 compared with the previous two years. This is largely explained by the increase in the standard rate of VAT in 2010 and 2011.
On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes.
then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.
That's the risk Ed is taking And the idea that Trades Unions will break themselves up we'll file under "PB Tories on acid"
I don't think Dave wants a cap that forces political parties to build a mass membership though.
colour me sceptical. That Ed would risk Labour offending his paymasters when he's up to his eyes in debts is highly unlikely imo. I doubt he'll want his legacy to be the man who bankrupted Labour.
As for payments, that rather depends on how it's done and how legislation is written, there's lots of scope for creative accountancy. And still the biggest scope remains TU benefits in kind and how that will be accounted for. However Ed has remained helpfully obtuse on his plan so we'll just have to see how it develops. Maybe it will need some focus groups, or he'll publish the details at 2 a.m. on a rainy Tuesday after all the leader debates.
Dave is going to try and run from the leaders debates as he ran from monthly press conferences when trouble hits.
But Cameron can accept Labours offer to take union leaders out of the funding equation (above £5k) if he wants to. I don't think he wants to.
You don't think he should wait to find out the details first then? He should just accept the lot based on a plan that wasn't even being considered a couple of weeks ago. Seriously?
then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.
That's the risk Ed is taking And the idea that Trades Unions will break themselves up we'll file under "PB Tories on acid"
I don't think Dave wants a cap that forces political parties to build a mass membership though.
colour me sceptical. That Ed would risk Labour offending his paymasters when he's up to his eyes in debts is highly unlikely imo. I doubt he'll want his legacy to be the man who bankrupted Labour.
As for payments, that rather depends on how it's done and how legislation is written, there's lots of scope for creative accountancy. And still the biggest scope remains TU benefits in kind and how that will be accounted for. However Ed has remained helpfully obtuse on his plan so we'll just have to see how it develops. Maybe it will need some focus groups, or he'll publish the details at 2 a.m. on a rainy Tuesday after all the leader debates.
Dave is going to try and run from the leaders debates as he ran from monthly press conferences when trouble hits.
But Cameron can accept Labours offer to take union leaders out of the funding equation (above £5k) if he wants to. I don't think he wants to.
What's Cameron got to do with it ? Ed's Union issue is Ed's. and Ed's alone and atm he's grandstanding and hoping the problem will be forgotten. He's only in this pickle because he has nothing to say about the country so his agenda is now getting written for him. His silence of the bland policy only works if he can stay on the attack, as soon as the opposition hit back big holes open up because there's nothing there to fill them.
then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.
That's the risk Ed is taking And the idea that Trades Unions will break themselves up we'll file under "PB Tories on acid"
I don't think Dave wants a cap that forces political parties to build a mass membership though.
colour me sceptical. That Ed would risk Labour offending his paymasters when he's up to his eyes in debts is highly unlikely imo. I doubt he'll want his legacy to be the man who bankrupted Labour.
As for payments, that rather depends on how it's done and how legislation is written, there's lots of scope for creative accountancy. And still the biggest scope remains TU benefits in kind and how that will be accounted for. However Ed has remained helpfully obtuse on his plan so we'll just have to see how it develops. Maybe it will need some focus groups, or he'll publish the details at 2 a.m. on a rainy Tuesday after all the leader debates.
Dave is going to try and run from the leaders debates as he ran from monthly press conferences when trouble hits.
With all the excitement of the Speech you probably missed my request yesterday:
Can you please suggest a sensible bet that reflects your views on the leaders' debates.
It is an interesting piece of statistics, but seems to be mostly a leveling down.
So despite all the screams of anguish, we are a more equal society than 2010.
It seems to be a good thing that Labour plan to follow the same policies, but we come back to the same question. What would be the point of a Labour government?
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe Well look at that, Tory Govt creating a more equal society than under Labour! MT @ITVLauraK ONS says income inequality at lowest since 1986
There was a fall in income inequality between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This was driven partly by earnings falling for higher income households and partly by changes in taxes and benefits. These changes include an increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to National Insurance Contributions and Child Tax Credits.
Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%).
Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income of £78,300 in 2011/12, 14 times greater than the poorest fifth, who had an average income of £5,400.
Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account, the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£57,300 per year and £15,800 respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.
The proportion of disposable income paid in indirect taxes increased across the income distribution in 2011/12 compared with the previous two years. This is largely explained by the increase in the standard rate of VAT in 2010 and 2011.
On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes.
Mary Riddel who frankly I usually dismiss as a Labour cheerleader in the DT is singing a slightly different tune today.
Ed Miliband is no weakling but this union battle could destroy him. The Labour leader has picked a fight that has very little relevance to voters...
He should instead be much more worried by the silent moderates fearful that the leader may go too far. In their view, Mr Miliband should temper his reforms with a proud defence of a union link intrinsic to the party’s history and future. “For God’s sake, proceed with caution,” says one senior figure, who speaks for what may be the majority of Labour MPs...
The rise of Ukip and Euroscepticism is one example. While all the major parties have been inert [I have no idea what she's saying here as its nonsense re the Tories], Labour – still dithering over whether to hold a referendum – may reap the whirlwind by failing to make a proper defence of Europe at the outset. Even on smaller, totemic matters there is fudge or silence. On the iniquitous spare bedroom tax, for example, MPs are mortified that they have nothing to say on what has become the biggest doorstep issue. “People are furious,” says one leading party figure. “Yet we have no clear position.”
Far from demonstrating his Iron Man credentials, Mr Miliband risks being drawn into a scuffle that increases contempt for politics in general and Labour in particular. The Ed and Len show is, at root, a battle of ideology and thus of supreme uninterest to voters engaged in their own survival struggles. Ideology pays no bills, minds no children, trains no teachers and offers no succour to the sick, the elderly and the dying. Mr Miliband’s huge gamble in moving his party to the Left can work only if he can prove that Labour will offer fair wages to those in penury, jobs and training for the young and care for the old. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10168911/Ed-Miliband-is-no-weakling-but-this-union-battle-could-destroy-him.html
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
Something for Coalition supporters to be very happy about and plaudits to George Osborne for realising what a sensible and effective LD policy it was.
On topic, it's difficult to fault OGH's logic and I've always thought that of the two mountains, the 21 seat hillside the Conservatives need to climb for their majority looked a tougher one than the 70 or so seat one Labour has to ascend.
It's hard not to think that the vote share of the two main parties will be higher in 2015 than in 2010 and possibly back to around 75% so the battle is the same old battle in the same old seats which just goes to show nothing much changes in politics and we're back to ground organisations and marginal polling to give us some clues as to what might happen.
"Over 80% of the money on Betfair is now 'professional', where there is no element of wanting a particular result."
I believe, David, that a high proportion is also robotic. Certainly in horse racing margins have been squeezed to the point where I find myself using the exchanges less and less.
An ex colleague of mine runs a tennis betting operation that uses software to compile odds and they then bet on betfair if there is a discrepancy.
Ozzies apparently are playing a 19yo debutant slow left armer.
Laying the draw is free money. Backing England at greater than evs is also good value. May be worth saving some bank for after the toss - could be a good one to lose.
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe Well look at that, Tory Govt creating a more equal society than under Labour! MT @ITVLauraK ONS says income inequality at lowest since 1986
Not only is this nothing to be proud of, but it's a hideous example of how the State forces control and regulation on our lives. It's a socialist command economy.
I want the freedom, the equality of opportunity and the lack of State heavy handed regulation and restriction to be able to succeed or fail. If I succeed I want to be able to do so without boundaries and with a personal nosebleed-high potential. If I fail I don't ask for more than to be picked up and dusted off in an emergency safety net for those with absolutely nothing so that I can try again.
My measure of utopia for a country is a spectacularly unequal society where the top have got there purely on merit. And, of course, pay a flat rate of tax which is the other dreadful factoid from that link. If it costs 38% of income to run a country then it costs *everyone* 38%.
Though very unfashionable at almost every point in his Cabinet career and since - I've been a bit of a Blunkett fan. I read his autobiog and its fascinating greasy pole stuff
The Third Way has destroyed it unless you yearn for the 70/80s if the Left are right. Most of us reject that idea - but it shows the paucity of thinking that this is best they can come up with = recycled politics that's failed everywhere.
on another note
ONS @statisticsONS Quality-adjusted labour input up 3.2% in 2012, following 1.4% in 2011 bit.ly/1aVg3WU
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
It's a great policy isn't it. I wonder how high we can raise the personal allowance? Certainly up to full time minimum wage, maybe even full time living wage. It would also be great if that process could be started before the election.
"One is the unhelpfully positive response from Len McCluskey. Over the past few days we’ve become accustomed to an avalanche of self-pitying, self-indulgent bombast from the Unite leader. But yesterday he was the epitome of moderation and restraint. Miliband’s speech was “visionary” he said. His union would engage “positively” with the proposals.
All of which is jolly nice of him, but not necessarily indicative of the response of the union movement as a whole. Over the past week the other union general secretaries have been furious at McCluskey’s grandstanding. And my understanding is that Unite have now agreed to dial down the rhetoric and allow other unions to take a lead in responding to the Miliband plan.
And their response is instructive. Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union, was said to be “bouncing off the walls” over what Miliband had announced, something reflected in his slightly tortured description of the proposals as “completely without the necessary substance that is required to see if they are workable”. Ominously, he added that “in the scrum of publicity it is important to note that Ed Miliband has said that these ideas will take a considerable length of time to flesh out and if feasible to implement them”. Billy Hayes of the CWU described the announcement as “dog whistle” politics, whilst Dave Prentis of Unison described the whole thing as “an unforgivable diversion from the real issues that this country faces”. That last comment was probably directed as much at the leader of Unite as the leader of the Labour Party...
Shouldn't Labour just apologise for the last 20 years, wrap up their party and let the LDs get on with being the opposition ? At least the LDs get results.
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
It's a great policy isn't it. I wonder how high we can raise the personal allowance? Certainly up to full time minimum wage, maybe even full time living wage. It would also be great if that process could be started before the election.
Indeed should be accelerated. Best thing the LDs have done in govt.
So Bresnan or Finn? I would say Finn. If it is Bresnan England are more worried about their batting than they want to admit.
Australia have called up a young mystery spinner. Looks like they have swallowed the line about spinning pitches.
Given the weather forecast laying the draw here seems to me to be a no brainer. A winner is slightly harder to call. Australia will be enormously up for this and I think their best chance of a win in the series is the first or the last test.
Edit. And its Finn. Good positive choice for England.
My prediction for the Ashes is 3-1 England but I think the best bet on England, assuming England are on top, is for Joe Root to be top England batsman @ 11/2. As an opener, he is likely to get the most chance for runs if England ever face a small fourth innings total and he is in form. Obviously, Cook is the top man but I think the significantly longer price on Root is very fair.
Swann looks the obvious choice for top bowler as England would have been mad not to try get pitches that turn a bit given Australia's struggle to find a spinner. But his record at TB is poor so it might be worth looking for longer prices after the first Test.
Anyone else have last minute thoughts while we wait the last half hour?
The Class War advocated by numpties like Owen Jones and his Uncle Len are just snobbery dressed up as something worthy - and virtually everything I associate with Labour is playing to the Pressure Group Gallery of minorities, health care and safety nazis et al.
All parties have their fair share of lobbyist - but Labour has cornered the market in those that demand we pay for them to boss us about and in many cases live rather better-off lives. The ludicrous Bedroom Tax being a prime example of their hypocrisy.
"Miliband yesterday denounced Falkirk as the "death-throes" of a "hated machine politics". In reality, it was New Labour which deployed machine politics over two decades to parachute in croney candidates, often with the collaboration of pliant union officials.
One consequence is the hopelessly unrepresentative nature of the parliamentary Labour party, only 9% of whose members are now from a manual occupation, compared with 40% in 1979 and 4% in parliament as a whole."
England and Wales playing Oz in the ashes, I wonder if the English will fly union jacks as not just an English team? Thought not. Maybe the welsh should get their own team as many in England have difficulty recognising they even exist as a joint team. No flag, just the English one so might as well just call it England as it is in all but very occasional name. Everyone is deemed English unless the players put up a stink and then we have to all be British it seems. Why is the all England club not called the all UK club I wonder? Does it only have authority over England? What about Guernsey where that good tennis player comes from that people say is English? Or that other one from Dunblane that Inverdale thinks is English? : )
As an LD, in the unlikely event that we're in a position to be part of another Government, I would have the continued rise in personal allowances as the absolute dealbreaker (it's certainly far more important than electoral reform).
If we are entering some form of Osbornian golden economic age as Avery posits ad infinitum and ad nauseam, we should be aiming to raise the personal tax allowance threshold to £15k in the life of the next Parliament as well as raising the rate at which the 40% tax rate kicks in to perhaps £47,500 by 2020.
These seem far more sensible policies than straight tax cuts which some seem to be advocating and which would disproportionately favour the minority of high earners rather than helping the majority of medium to low wage-earners.
I'm surprised Labour aren't saying more about this.
As an LD, in the unlikely event that we're in a position to be part of another Government, I would have the continued rise in personal allowances as the absolute dealbreaker (it's certainly far more important than electoral reform).
If we are entering some form of Osbornian golden economic age as Avery posits ad infinitum and ad nauseam, we should be aiming to raise the personal tax allowance threshold to £15k in the life of the next Parliament as well as raising the rate at which the 40% tax rate kicks in to perhaps £47,500 by 2020.
These seem far more sensible policies than straight tax cuts which some seem to be advocating and which would disproportionately favour the minority of high earners rather than helping the majority of medium to low wage-earners.
I'm surprised Labour aren't saying more about this.
abolish uni fees and stop crippling the next generation
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
Something for Coalition supporters to be very happy about and plaudits to George Osborne for realising what a sensible and effective LD policy it was.
On topic, it's difficult to fault OGH's logic and I've always thought that of the two mountains, the 21 seat hillside the Conservatives need to climb for their majority looked a tougher one than the 70 or so seat one Labour has to ascend.
It's hard not to think that the vote share of the two main parties will be higher in 2015 than in 2010 and possibly back to around 75% so the battle is the same old battle in the same old seats which just goes to show nothing much changes in politics and we're back to ground organisations and marginal polling to give us some clues as to what might happen.
I'd expect the Lib Dems to recover to 17/18% in 2015, UKIP to win 7% or so, and Others to win 5/6%.
OT If you're on Twitter and your timeline is infested with tweets about stuff you really aren't interested in... try this.
Go to Settings in Tweetdeck [ download it here if you want it separate from your browser page - http://tweetdeck.com/ , click on Mute and type in the words you don't want to read about - even if they're from your favourite Twits.
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe Well look at that, Tory Govt creating a more equal society than under Labour! MT @ITVLauraK ONS says income inequality at lowest since 1986
There was a fall in income inequality between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This was driven partly by earnings falling for higher income households and partly by changes in taxes and benefits. These changes include an increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to National Insurance Contributions and Child Tax Credits.
Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%).
Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income of £78,300 in 2011/12, 14 times greater than the poorest fifth, who had an average income of £5,400.
Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account, the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£57,300 per year and £15,800 respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.
The proportion of disposable income paid in indirect taxes increased across the income distribution in 2011/12 compared with the previous two years. This is largely explained by the increase in the standard rate of VAT in 2010 and 2011.
On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes.
It's not good news, though, as it involves levelling down, rather than levelling up.
Try telling Date Night Dave that, and all he sees are the photo ops.
Deploy the Sam Cam.
But I'll bet that he won't turn up his nose at the absolutely mouth-watering tax breaks that well-off married couples get in relation to Inheritance Tax, and Capital Gains Tax.
My prediction for the Ashes is 3-1 England but I think the best bet on England, assuming England are on top, is for Joe Root to be top England batsman @ 11/2. As an opener, he is likely to get the most chance for runs if England ever face a small fourth innings total and he is in form. Obviously, Cook is the top man but I think the significantly longer price on Root is very fair.
Swann looks the obvious choice for top bowler as England would have been mad not to try get pitches that turn a bit given Australia's struggle to find a spinner. But his record at TB is poor so it might be worth looking for longer prices after the first Test.
Anyone else have last minute thoughts while we wait the last half hour?
That Root call looks a good one, Lucian. I'm joining you.
"Miliband yesterday denounced Falkirk as the "death-throes" of a "hated machine politics". In reality, it was New Labour which deployed machine politics over two decades to parachute in croney candidates, often with the collaboration of pliant union officials.
One consequence is the hopelessly unrepresentative nature of the parliamentary Labour party, only 9% of whose members are now from a manual occupation, compared with 40% in 1979 and 4% in parliament as a whole."
So laments the Winchester and Balliol horny-handed son of toil.
Hopi Sen @hopisen Own up. Who put 'provide helpful quotes for Tory leader to use at PMQs' in Job Description for Trade Union general secretaries? You scamp!
In Major's second election his share of the two-party share declined by 13.4 percentage points, to 41.5%. A similar decline for Cameron would put him on 42.1% of the two-party share, which would be about 27.4% on a static two-party share, against Labour's 37.7%. Miliband just short of a 100-seat majority...
As an LD, in the unlikely event that we're in a position to be part of another Government, I would have the continued rise in personal allowances as the absolute dealbreaker (it's certainly far more important than electoral reform).
If we are entering some form of Osbornian golden economic age as Avery posits ad infinitum and ad nauseam, we should be aiming to raise the personal tax allowance threshold to £15k in the life of the next Parliament as well as raising the rate at which the 40% tax rate kicks in to perhaps £47,500 by 2020.
These seem far more sensible policies than straight tax cuts which some seem to be advocating and which would disproportionately favour the minority of high earners rather than helping the majority of medium to low wage-earners.
I'm surprised Labour aren't saying more about this.
abolish uni fees and stop crippling the next generation
Even if the LDs wanted to do it, I suspect neither the Labour nor the Conservative parties would. I agree the commitment to abolishing fees was a disastrous political error for which the Party will be paying for a long time to come.
Given what we have, my immediate thoughts are that the income at which loans start to become repayable could be raised to perhaps £30k to give more people more time to start building up savings and I would also be looking at the interest rates charged on the loans and asking if these loans shouldn't really be interest-free. It's part of the investment we're making in the individual and the individual is making in themselves and thereby for the benefit of the whole economy.
@tim - Just by chance, I can't recall how it happened, but I had supper with young Seumas (whom I knew slightly at college) in 1984 in Bournemouth the same evening following Kinnock's attack on Militant. I was gushing with enthusiasm at the speech - he was rather less impressed. Can't think why! Of course Hugh Gaitskell was also a Wykehamist.
Osborne wanting credit for inequality falling after three years without growth is like the Spanish govt trumpeting a fall in net migration as a sign of success. It's not difficult, but you'd be an idiot to rely on perma-stagnation to achieve policy goals.
The Gini coefficient has been broadly flat since Fatcha trebled benefit dependency.
Back on the attack, because you can't actually answer the question.
Ed's whole house of cards is built on saying nothing and keeping the pressure on the other side. But once "events" kick in and the pressure is back on Labour Ed's policy vacuum gets filled by events outside his control and the gaping holes in Labour's policy fabric become obvious.
Ed's now got a problem. Crosby appears to be stopping the self inflicted grief, the economy is picking up and the better off are paying more. So what's Ed going to do ? It appears the government might not want to lose the next election after all and Ed's doing nothing to win it. Call it quits and let the LDs hold the blues to account, at least they get results without bankrupting the country.
Really what is the point of Labour ? Care to give a reply ?
@JohnO He's an easy target but he makes a fair point. Our MPs are not remotely representative of anything other than themselves.
Have they ever been? Tory MPs today are far more representative (no, far less unrepresentative) of Tory voters in terms of background/occupation/gender than ever before.
In Major's second election his share of the two-party share declined by 13.4 percentage points, to 41.5%. A similar decline for Cameron would put him on 42.1% of the two-party share, which would be about 27.4% on a static two-party share, against Labour's 37.7%. Miliband just short of a 100-seat majority...
Miliband is no Blair...Are you suggesting that the political colossus Gordon Brown was a more formidable opponent for Cameron in 2010 than Kinnock faced in John Major in 1992?
There was a White Flight debate on here yesterday - this is pertinent
Eric Kaufmann @epkaufm ONS LS: London white British working class leaving London at faster rate than professionals. Some indication of trend toward widening gap
@JohnO He's an easy target but he makes a fair point. Our MPs are not remotely representative of anything other than themselves.
Have they ever been? Tory MPs today are far more representative (no, far less unrepresentative) of Tory voters in terms of background/occupation/gender than ever before.
Unfortunately, one of the few genuinely working-class Conservative MPs of the 1950s and 60s, Ray Mawby, turned out to be a Czech spy.
@tim - Perhaps he wanted to put me, a mere grammar school lad, at ease. After all, he's a gent.
He's a c*nt.
Careful @tim you are upsetting our PB Tory moral compass - my enemy's enemy, etc...
now as to that leaders debate bet, how about this:
a £10 bet at evens that Cameron will participate in the leaders' debates
assumptions: if they don't happen you win, if there is any number of debates and he participates I win, if there is any number of debates with the leaders of LibDem and Lab and not Cameron you win, if there is a "special" debate with the leaders of any three (!) of LibDem, Labour, UKIP, SNP and not Cameron you win. Debates to be defined as debate format (eg. not if Clegg/EdM are both guests on Newsnight, etc).
Osborne wanting credit for inequality falling after three years without growth is like the Spanish govt trumpeting a fall in net migration as a sign of success. It's not difficult, but you'd be an idiot to rely on perma-stagnation to achieve policy goals.
The Gini coefficient has been broadly flat since Fatcha trebled benefit dependency.
Back on the attack, because you can't actually answer the question.
Ed's whole house of cards is built on saying nothing and keeping the pressure on the other side. But once "events" kick in and the pressure is back on Labour Ed's policy vacuum gets filled by events outside his control and the gaping holes in Labour's policy fabric become obvious.
Ed's now got a problem. Crosby appears to be stopping the self inflicted grief, the economy is picking up and the better off are paying more. So what's Ed going to do ? It appears the government might not want to lose the next election after all and Ed's doing nothing to win it. Call it quits and let the LDs hold the blues to account, at least they get results without bankrupting the country.
Really what is the point of Labour ? Care to give a reply ?
Is there anything that anyone can write that will not produce a LOL from a Labour-hater such as yourself?
If you ask me, the point of Labour is to strive to produce a society in which there is equality of opportunity, and to seek to do something about it when they are in power. Labour should also be a party built around internationalism and the idea that people and countries are stronger when they work together. If the reforms that EdM announced yesterday are seen through to conclusion (a big if) I think that Labour will be in a far better position to become this kind of party.
Kitty Donaldson @kitty_donaldson Ever wondered how many spies the UK has? In 2011/12 GCHQ employed 6,132 people, MI5 3,961 and MI6 3,200. Figures in today's ISC report
As an LD, in the unlikely event that we're in a position to be part of another Government, I would have the continued rise in personal allowances as the absolute dealbreaker (it's certainly far more important than electoral reform).
If we are entering some form of Osbornian golden economic age as Avery posits ad infinitum and ad nauseam, we should be aiming to raise the personal tax allowance threshold to £15k in the life of the next Parliament as well as raising the rate at which the 40% tax rate kicks in to perhaps £47,500 by 2020.
These seem far more sensible policies than straight tax cuts which some seem to be advocating and which would disproportionately favour the minority of high earners rather than helping the majority of medium to low wage-earners.
I'm surprised Labour aren't saying more about this.
abolish uni fees and stop crippling the next generation
Even if the LDs wanted to do it, I suspect neither the Labour nor the Conservative parties would. I agree the commitment to abolishing fees was a disastrous political error for which the Party will be paying for a long time to come.
Given what we have, my immediate thoughts are that the income at which loans start to become repayable could be raised to perhaps £30k to give more people more time to start building up savings and I would also be looking at the interest rates charged on the loans and asking if these loans shouldn't really be interest-free. It's part of the investment we're making in the individual and the individual is making in themselves and thereby for the benefit of the whole economy.
Do you also support taxpayer subsidised loans to people who do not choose to go to university?
So I expect that you would support the coalition policies that have reduced inequalities, and maintained international aid and obligations.
It leaves Labour as the continuity coalition at the next election, though I expect that the Tories will run with a more right wing manifesto. So the political centre shifts rightwards.
Osborne wanting credit for inequality falling after three years without growth is like the Spanish govt trumpeting a fall in net migration as a sign of success. It's not difficult, but you'd be an idiot to rely on perma-stagnation to achieve policy goals.
The Gini coefficient has been broadly flat since Fatcha trebled benefit dependency.
Back on the attack, because you can't actually answer the question.
Ed's whole house of cards is built on saying nothing and keeping the pressure on the other side. But once "events" kick in and the pressure is back on Labour Ed's policy vacuum gets filled by events outside his control and the gaping holes in Labour's policy fabric become obvious.
Ed's now got a problem. Crosby appears to be stopping the self inflicted grief, the economy is picking up and the better off are paying more. So what's Ed going to do ? It appears the government might not want to lose the next election after all and Ed's doing nothing to win it. Call it quits and let the LDs hold the blues to account, at least they get results without bankrupting the country.
Really what is the point of Labour ? Care to give a reply ?
Is there anything that anyone can write that will not produce a LOL from a Labour-hater such as yourself?
If you ask me, the point of Labour is to strive to produce a society in which there is equality of opportunity, and to seek to do something about it when they are in power. Labour should also be a party built around internationalism and the idea that people and countries are stronger when they work together. If the reforms that EdM announced yesterday are seen through to conclusion (a big if) I think that Labour will be in a far better position to become this kind of party.
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
Something for Coalition supporters to be very happy about and plaudits to George Osborne for realising what a sensible and effective LD policy it was.
On topic, it's difficult to fault OGH's logic and I've always thought that of the two mountains, the 21 seat hillside the Conservatives need to climb for their majority looked a tougher one than the 70 or so seat one Labour has to ascend.
It's hard not to think that the vote share of the two main parties will be higher in 2015 than in 2010 and possibly back to around 75% so the battle is the same old battle in the same old seats which just goes to show nothing much changes in politics and we're back to ground organisations and marginal polling to give us some clues as to what might happen.
I'd expect the Lib Dems to recover to 17/18% in 2015, UKIP to win 7% or so, and Others to win 5/6%.
The LDs' poll numbers have been very steady since late 2010. Nothing seems to move them up or down.
Having lived and worked in York during the early days of PB having moving from Oxford I would back it.
A great city but like many of the places that I have lived/work in lost its league football in recent times. Same with Oxford, Cambridge and Bedfordshire (Luton). Oxford United only returned after I'd left the city.
Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
I'd want somewhere up North, so York seems like an attractive option. Just need a spur off the M1, and a bit of an extension of HS2! Would also be a nice coup for the Yorkists after their humiliating defeat in '85.
York certainly appeals to my Jacobite sensibilities with the white rose/cockade.
@tim - Perhaps he wanted to put me, a mere grammar school lad, at ease. After all, he's a gent.
He's a c*nt.
Careful @tim you are upsetting our PB Tory moral compass - my enemy's enemy, etc...
now as to that leaders debate bet, how about this:
a £10 bet at evens that Cameron will participate in the leaders' debates
assumptions: if they don't happen you win, if there is any number of debates and he participates I win, if there is any number of debates with the leaders of LibDem and Lab and not Cameron you win, if there is a "special" debate with the leaders of any three (!) of LibDem, Labour, UKIP, SNP and not Cameron you win. Debates to be defined as debate format (eg. not if Clegg/EdM are both guests on Newsnight, etc).
Three debates during the election campaign is my bottom line. Dave does three and you win.
Osborne wanting credit for inequality falling after three years without growth is like the Spanish govt trumpeting a fall in net migration as a sign of success. It's not difficult, but you'd be an idiot to rely on perma-stagnation to achieve policy goals.
The Gini coefficient has been broadly flat since Fatcha trebled benefit dependency.
Back on the attack, because you can't actually answer the question.
Ed's whole house of cards is built on saying nothing and keeping the pressure on the other side. But once "events" kick in and the pressure is back on Labour Ed's policy vacuum gets filled by events outside his control and the gaping holes in Labour's policy fabric become obvious.
Ed's now got a problem. Crosby appears to be stopping the self inflicted grief, the economy is picking up and the better off are paying more. So what's Ed going to do ? It appears the government might not want to lose the next election after all and Ed's doing nothing to win it. Call it quits and let the LDs hold the blues to account, at least they get results without bankrupting the country.
Really what is the point of Labour ? Care to give a reply ?
Is there anything that anyone can write that will not produce a LOL from a Labour-hater such as yourself?
If you ask me, the point of Labour is to strive to produce a society in which there is equality of opportunity, and to seek to do something about it when they are in power. Labour should also be a party built around internationalism and the idea that people and countries are stronger when they work together. If the reforms that EdM announced yesterday are seen through to conclusion (a big if) I think that Labour will be in a far better position to become this kind of party.
I didn't put a LOL in that post SO - LOL
As for your definition well at least you're prepared to give it a go which the party apparatchiks have chickened off doing. However what you say Labour stands for is showing your age. Little of what you propose resembles the modern Labour party. it might have been Labour fifty years ago, but today Labour is primarily a sectional interest group for the Public sector, middle class ideologues and minority pressure groups and is basing it's election plans around getting those people mobilised to vote for it. The principles of a modern forward looking party have long gone and aren't coming back. Porkbarrellissimo.
"Ever wondered how many spies the UK has? In 2011/12 GCHQ employed 6,132 people, MI5 3,961 and MI6 3,200. Figures in today's ISC report"
I think 'spies' might be a little overenthusiastic! I wonder how many would describe their job as as being in an true intelligence capacity. I'm sure these organisations must have cleaners and other support staff, PAs, HR people, and so on.
On the inequality front, although it's an interesting stat from a campaign perspective, I can't help thinking that it's not particularly good news. If PBers recall the Simon Hughes/Margaret Thatcher exchange, then Thatcher's point really was that if the poorest's incomes fall, but the richest's fall proportionately more, that would not be a success and vice-versa. The overall figures show that is pretty much what has happened - although the fall for the poorest has been slight https://twitter.com/jamestplunkett/status/354886182477373441/photo/1
@tim - Just by chance, I can't recall how it happened, but I had supper with young Seumas (whom I knew slightly at college) in 1984 in Bournemouth the same evening following Kinnock's attack on Militant. I was gushing with enthusiasm at the speech - he was rather less impressed. Can't think why! Of course Hugh Gaitskell was also a Wykehamist.
There was a White Flight debate on here yesterday - this is pertinent
Eric Kaufmann @epkaufm ONS LS: London white British working class leaving London at faster rate than professionals. Some indication of trend toward widening gap
Ms Plato,
Unfortunately the young Yorkshireman chose the wrong target. Mr and Mrs Billy Bragg hardly count as "white-flight"....
@tim - Perhaps he wanted to put me, a mere grammar school lad, at ease. After all, he's a gent.
He's a c*nt.
Careful @tim you are upsetting our PB Tory moral compass - my enemy's enemy, etc...
now as to that leaders debate bet, how about this:
a £10 bet at evens that Cameron will participate in the leaders' debates
assumptions: if they don't happen you win, if there is any number of debates and he participates I win, if there is any number of debates with the leaders of LibDem and Lab and not Cameron you win, if there is a "special" debate with the leaders of any three (!) of LibDem, Labour, UKIP, SNP and not Cameron you win. Debates to be defined as debate format (eg. not if Clegg/EdM are both guests on Newsnight, etc).
Three debates during the election campaign is my bottom line. Dave does three and you win.
You're Ron
A tenner though, I might have to put that through the Charlesometer and generate a few dozen posts prevaricating.
Yep - and no Scottish Mings or whatever they will be called by then.
Comments
So York or Rutland it is !!
Trying to remove the money from politics is impossible - like water, it will find a way to reach its destination point and leak out.
You've been away, so may be out-off-the-loop: Check PPP, GNI, NNI for comparisons.* As the Oirish Finance Minister admits actual income in The Republic is about 70% of the headline figure. **
* I believe Neil offers remedial classes for you and your ilk.
** See t'Economist.
I’m hearing a mini-reshuffle is expected next week now (with perhaps only 8 or so posts at sub-Cabinet level changing). Tuesday, Thursday (when the House formally rises) and Friday are all mooted as possible days for the announcement.
Watch for some rising stars to get advancement and some of the older guard to realise their time is up.
More importantly, a limited Cabinet reshuffle is expected to take place next spring to get the Coaliton teams ready for the election. Women will be a priority. The bookies should cut their odds on Liz Truss getting a promotion.
The idea of splitting a reshuffle over July and then September seems to have been roundly rubbished http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/81670/reshuffle_kerfuffle.html
Nah, there's only one day on which it matters. The polling two years beforehand takes into account all sorts of factors that will have changed by then, from it not being a *real* poll taken after real scrutiny has been given to the various parties and leaders, to the improvements in the economy that are likely to occur between now and 2015.
To put the scale of change into context, the Tories only need a net swing of about a third of a percentage point per month from Labour (though some of that would also come from UKIP to Con and Lab to LD), in the 22 months between now and the election to be in majority-winning territory.
Ref the LD / UKIP figures, they're probably right. The chances of the Lib Dems securing an overall majority are actually much less than the 0.5% quoted. I cannot think of any credible scenario by which they will gain support on 2010 after the events of the last three years (they may well gain some back between now and 2015 but not the full 10-15% they've lost since last time). By contrast, in bad times, there is an outside chance that a populist party *with no historic failure behind it* could capitalise on the simultaneous unpopularity of all three established parties and secure 25-30% at a general election, especially if their leader takes part in, and performs very well in, national debates. It is highly unlikely (the 100/1 is probably right), but it's not inconceivable.
Good point - it'd be interesting to know how much polls change DURING a GE campaign and if they changed the result from start to end - much, at all, the Party who won.
"Patients' lives are being put at risk because thousands of healthcare assistants in hospitals across the country receive no training at all, an inquiry has found.
A third of trusts do not even check whether the assistants, who carry out a range of vital caring tasks instead of nurses, can read or write properly, according to a government-commissioned study. The only training some staff received before caring for the sick was watching a DVD.
Report author Camilla Cavendish warned the NHS is 'extremely bad at getting rid of people', damaging public confidence in the entire health service.
'I think what you need is proper leadership and management, which is in every care home and every hospital the employers are held responsible for the quality of those staff and they are held responsible for meeting certain basic standards of competence and care,; she told BBC Radio 4.
The situation is so dangerous because on most wards there are more healthcare assistants than fully-trained nurses.
The Cavendish review was ordered in the wake of the Mid Staffs scandal in which hundreds of patients are thought to have died needlessly as a result of poor care and neglect.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359128/Cavendish-report-warns-thousands-untrained-healthcare-assistants-putting-patients-lives-risk.html#ixzz2Yd5A5XvY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(will that go through the obscenity filter ?)
"All healthcare assistants in hospitals and home helps employed by councils should undergo the same basic level of training so that the public could be confident they were ‘up to the job’, Miss Cavendish said.
They should be forced to go through a two-week induction and then undergo a six-month probation period, during which they are monitored to ensure they are providing decent care. If they fail, they would have to be sacked.
Miss Cavendish said there was a tendency to ‘understate’ what we regard as basic patient care, what it actually involves and how important it is.
‘I’m proposing a certificate of fundamental care which will be a basic minimum of care.. infection control, dementia awareness...
‘The best hospitals are giving people inductions and then having long probationary periods where members of staff are supervised. Everything I’ve recommended is based on what the best organisations are doing,’ she said.
She said there had to be a cultural change in the NHS towards the role of care staff.
‘There are 60 different titles for healthcare assistants – they should all be called nursing assistants, they should have clear job descriptions, and be held accountable against what they are responsible for.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359128/Cavendish-report-warns-thousands-untrained-healthcare-assistants-putting-patients-lives-risk.html#ixzz2Yd5ssqoi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
As for payments, that rather depends on how it's done and how legislation is written, there's lots of scope for creative accountancy. And still the biggest scope remains TU benefits in kind and how that will be accounted for. However Ed has remained helpfully obtuse on his plan so we'll just have to see how it develops. Maybe it will need some focus groups, or he'll publish the details at 2 a.m. on a rainy Tuesday after all the leader debates.
In Wales there is always pressure for more than the 60AMs as the case is made that the WG is not subject to enough scrutiny. There is of course resistance from the electorate to the employment of more politicians.
However, I see no reason that (if HoC business is organised correctly) that the 40 Welsh MPs could not sit as a form of Upper Chamber in Cardiff, in the rest of their time, and scrutinise the work of the WG and AMs.
At least it would stop my local MP from saying that topics like health, education etc are nothing to do with him as there are devolved matters. Of course the cost of these MPs could be split between Westminster and Cardiff.
Probably the same arrangement could work for Scotland (presuming no independence) and NI.
"The Civil Service is already 15 per cent smaller than at the time of the last election. It’s the smallest it has been since the Second World War. But with fewer staff, it’s doing more. This jump in productivity contrasts with the period from 1997 to 2010, when public sector productivity flat-lined...
None of these new proposals require legislation or affect the fundamental Civil Service values which are enshrined in law.
Our changes include:
- Allowing ministers to establish Extended Ministerial Offices (EMOs). The officials and special advisers in these offices can be personally appointed by the minister to whom they will be accountable. These offices will include career Civil Servants working alongside other officials, brought in from outside on fixed-term appointments to provide - for example - policy advice, as well as special advisers.
- Moving Permanent Secretaries on to fixed-tenure appointments. This will sharpen accountability and make a reality of an announcement that the then Prime Minister Tony Blair made back in 2004.
- Introducing cross-Whitehall functional leadership. These heads of function (such as HR and procurement) will help drive greater savings and strengthen the corporate culture.
- Strengthening the accountability of Civil Servants to Parliament. We are reviewing the Osmotherly rules and will announce our changes in due course. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/07/francis-maude-mp-fixed-tenure-permanent-secretaries-and-much-more-our-next-steps-in-civil-service-re.html
Mind you, Victor Chandler takes the biscuit. They were in such a huff over my wins they closed my account.
"Over 80% of the money on Betfair is now 'professional', where there is no element of wanting a particular result."
I believe, David, that a high proportion is also robotic. Certainly in horse racing margins have been squeezed to the point where I find myself using the exchanges less and less.
Lab 1.7
Con 2.44
A great city but like many of the places that I have lived/work in lost its league football in recent times. Same with Oxford, Cambridge and Bedfordshire (Luton). Oxford United only returned after I'd left the city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmesbury
Fine place.
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe
Well look at that, Tory Govt creating a more equal society than under Labour! MT @ITVLauraK ONS says income inequality at lowest since 1986
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2011-2012/etb-stats-bulletin-2011-12.html
There was a fall in income inequality between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This was driven partly by earnings falling for higher income households and partly by changes in taxes and benefits. These changes include an increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to National Insurance Contributions and Child Tax Credits.
Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%).
Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income of £78,300 in 2011/12, 14 times greater than the poorest fifth, who had an average income of £5,400.
Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account, the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£57,300 per year and £15,800 respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.
The proportion of disposable income paid in indirect taxes increased across the income distribution in 2011/12 compared with the previous two years. This is largely explained by the increase in the standard rate of VAT in 2010 and 2011.
On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes.
At least Victor Chandler have the honesty to close accounts outright.
The other scoundrels rid themselves of winning customers by restricting them to ridiculously small bets.
It is time the Gambling Commission took a look at this practice.
Can you please suggest a sensible bet that reflects your views on the leaders' debates.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOzONoQCcAAlM5O.jpg:large
So despite all the screams of anguish, we are a more equal society than 2010.
It seems to be a good thing that Labour plan to follow the same policies, but we come back to the same question. What would be the point of a Labour government?
Ed Miliband is no weakling but this union battle could destroy him.
The Labour leader has picked a fight that has very little relevance to voters...
He should instead be much more worried by the silent moderates fearful that the leader may go too far. In their view, Mr Miliband should temper his reforms with a proud defence of a union link intrinsic to the party’s history and future. “For God’s sake, proceed with caution,” says one senior figure, who speaks for what may be the majority of Labour MPs...
The rise of Ukip and Euroscepticism is one example. While all the major parties have been inert [I have no idea what she's saying here as its nonsense re the Tories], Labour – still dithering over whether to hold a referendum – may reap the whirlwind by failing to make a proper defence of Europe at the outset. Even on smaller, totemic matters there is fudge or silence. On the iniquitous spare bedroom tax, for example, MPs are mortified that they have nothing to say on what has become the biggest doorstep issue. “People are furious,” says one leading party figure. “Yet we have no clear position.”
Far from demonstrating his Iron Man credentials, Mr Miliband risks being drawn into a scuffle that increases contempt for politics in general and Labour in particular. The Ed and Len show is, at root, a battle of ideology and thus of supreme uninterest to voters engaged in their own survival struggles. Ideology pays no bills, minds no children, trains no teachers and offers no succour to the sick, the elderly and the dying. Mr Miliband’s huge gamble in moving his party to the Left can work only if he can prove that Labour will offer fair wages to those in penury, jobs and training for the young and care for the old. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10168911/Ed-Miliband-is-no-weakling-but-this-union-battle-could-destroy-him.html
Excellent to see the policy of raising personal allowances having the desired effect - taking the lowest paid out of tax and increasing their disposable income and thereby starting to erode income inequality.
Something for Coalition supporters to be very happy about and plaudits to George Osborne for realising what a sensible and effective LD policy it was.
On topic, it's difficult to fault OGH's logic and I've always thought that of the two mountains, the 21 seat hillside the Conservatives need to climb for their majority looked a tougher one than the 70 or so seat one Labour has to ascend.
It's hard not to think that the vote share of the two main parties will be higher in 2015 than in 2010 and possibly back to around 75% so the battle is the same old battle in the same old seats which just goes to show nothing much changes in politics and we're back to ground organisations and marginal polling to give us some clues as to what might happen.
Ozzies apparently are playing a 19yo debutant slow left armer.
Laying the draw is free money. Backing England at greater than evs is also good value. May be worth saving some bank for after the toss - could be a good one to lose.
Well look at that, Tory Govt creating a more equal society than under Labour! MT @ITVLauraK ONS says income inequality at lowest since 1986
Not only is this nothing to be proud of, but it's a hideous example of how the State forces control and regulation on our lives. It's a socialist command economy.
I want the freedom, the equality of opportunity and the lack of State heavy handed regulation and restriction to be able to succeed or fail. If I succeed I want to be able to do so without boundaries and with a personal nosebleed-high potential. If I fail I don't ask for more than to be picked up and dusted off in an emergency safety net for those with absolutely nothing so that I can try again.
My measure of utopia for a country is a spectacularly unequal society where the top have got there purely on merit. And, of course, pay a flat rate of tax which is the other dreadful factoid from that link. If it costs 38% of income to run a country then it costs *everyone* 38%.
Once again, what is the point of Labour ?
on another note
ONS @statisticsONS
Quality-adjusted labour input up 3.2% in 2012, following 1.4% in 2011 bit.ly/1aVg3WU
It's a great policy isn't it. I wonder how high we can raise the personal allowance? Certainly up to full time minimum wage, maybe even full time living wage. It would also be great if that process could be started before the election.
"One is the unhelpfully positive response from Len McCluskey. Over the past few days we’ve become accustomed to an avalanche of self-pitying, self-indulgent bombast from the Unite leader. But yesterday he was the epitome of moderation and restraint. Miliband’s speech was “visionary” he said. His union would engage “positively” with the proposals.
All of which is jolly nice of him, but not necessarily indicative of the response of the union movement as a whole. Over the past week the other union general secretaries have been furious at McCluskey’s grandstanding. And my understanding is that Unite have now agreed to dial down the rhetoric and allow other unions to take a lead in responding to the Miliband plan.
And their response is instructive. Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union, was said to be “bouncing off the walls” over what Miliband had announced, something reflected in his slightly tortured description of the proposals as “completely without the necessary substance that is required to see if they are workable”. Ominously, he added that “in the scrum of publicity it is important to note that Ed Miliband has said that these ideas will take a considerable length of time to flesh out and if feasible to implement them”. Billy Hayes of the CWU described the announcement as “dog whistle” politics, whilst Dave Prentis of Unison described the whole thing as “an unforgivable diversion from the real issues that this country faces”. That last comment was probably directed as much at the leader of Unite as the leader of the Labour Party...
Shouldn't Labour just apologise for the last 20 years, wrap up their party and let the LDs get on with being the opposition ? At least the LDs get results.
Australia have called up a young mystery spinner. Looks like they have swallowed the line about spinning pitches.
Given the weather forecast laying the draw here seems to me to be a no brainer. A winner is slightly harder to call. Australia will be enormously up for this and I think their best chance of a win in the series is the first or the last test.
Edit. And its Finn. Good positive choice for England.
My prediction for the Ashes is 3-1 England but I think the best bet on England, assuming England are on top, is for Joe Root to be top England batsman @ 11/2. As an opener, he is likely to get the most chance for runs if England ever face a small fourth innings total and he is in form. Obviously, Cook is the top man but I think the significantly longer price on Root is very fair.
Swann looks the obvious choice for top bowler as England would have been mad not to try get pitches that turn a bit given Australia's struggle to find a spinner. But his record at TB is poor so it might be worth looking for longer prices after the first Test.
Anyone else have last minute thoughts while we wait the last half hour?
The Class War advocated by numpties like Owen Jones and his Uncle Len are just snobbery dressed up as something worthy - and virtually everything I associate with Labour is playing to the Pressure Group Gallery of minorities, health care and safety nazis et al.
All parties have their fair share of lobbyist - but Labour has cornered the market in those that demand we pay for them to boss us about and in many cases live rather better-off lives. The ludicrous Bedroom Tax being a prime example of their hypocrisy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/09/labour-unite
He does, however, make one arresting point:
"Miliband yesterday denounced Falkirk as the "death-throes" of a "hated machine politics". In reality, it was New Labour which deployed machine politics over two decades to parachute in croney candidates, often with the collaboration of pliant union officials.
One consequence is the hopelessly unrepresentative nature of the parliamentary Labour party, only 9% of whose members are now from a manual occupation, compared with 40% in 1979 and 4% in parliament as a whole."
I wonder if the English will fly union jacks as not just an English team?
Thought not.
Maybe the welsh should get their own team as many in England have difficulty recognising they even exist as a joint team. No flag, just the English one so might as well just call it England as it is in all but very occasional name.
Everyone is deemed English unless the players put up a stink and then we have to all be British it seems.
Why is the all England club not called the all UK club I wonder?
Does it only have authority over England? What about Guernsey where that good tennis player comes from that people say is English? Or that other one from Dunblane that Inverdale thinks is English? : )
If we are entering some form of Osbornian golden economic age as Avery posits ad infinitum and ad nauseam, we should be aiming to raise the personal tax allowance threshold to £15k in the life of the next Parliament as well as raising the rate at which the 40% tax rate kicks in to perhaps £47,500 by 2020.
These seem far more sensible policies than straight tax cuts which some seem to be advocating and which would disproportionately favour the minority of high earners rather than helping the majority of medium to low wage-earners.
I'm surprised Labour aren't saying more about this.
Go to Settings in Tweetdeck [ download it here if you want it separate from your browser page - http://tweetdeck.com/ , click on Mute and type in the words you don't want to read about - even if they're from your favourite Twits.
I've already added MUFC and CFC to mine...
So the Indie scoop on a WLQ 'solution' is based on briefings on an Oliver Nitwit/Danny Alexander master strategy?
Pity.
I'll believe it when I see the legislation.
What is Labour for and how Fatcha has won....
"When life means life
The 49 with whole-life tariffs include:
Jeremy Bamber Shot dead adoptive parents, sister and twin nephews
Douglas Vinter Released from life sentence for murder, then killed wife
Peter Moore Killed, mutilated men
Robert Maudsley Jailed for murder, he killed three more men in prison
Dennis Nilsen Muswell Hill killer
Rosemary West Wife of Fred West
Stephen Griffiths Crossbow cannibal
Levi Bellfield Milly Dowler killer
Dale Cregan Police killer
Mark Bridger April Jones’s killer
Steve Wright Suffolk Strangler
Peter Sutcliffe Yorkshire Ripper
Ian Brady Moors murderer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23251821
Small government in action: Corporate interests defeated. The free-market will out...!
Good luck to us all.
And not totally happy about those clouds.
Hopi Sen @hopisen
Own up. Who put 'provide helpful quotes for Tory leader to use at PMQs' in Job Description for Trade Union general secretaries? You scamp!
Ian Lavery MP less than impressed with rEd.
Aaron Bell @AaronBell80
@DPJHodges England 6-1
That said:
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/university-tuition-fees/repaying-your-student-loan/if-you-come-from-england/
Given what we have, my immediate thoughts are that the income at which loans start to become repayable could be raised to perhaps £30k to give more people more time to start building up savings and I would also be looking at the interest rates charged on the loans and asking if these loans shouldn't really be interest-free. It's part of the investment we're making in the individual and the individual is making in themselves and thereby for the benefit of the whole economy.
Ed's whole house of cards is built on saying nothing and keeping the pressure on the other side. But once "events" kick in and the pressure is back on Labour Ed's policy vacuum gets filled by events outside his control and the gaping holes in Labour's policy fabric become obvious.
Ed's now got a problem. Crosby appears to be stopping the self inflicted grief, the economy is picking up and the better off are paying more. So what's Ed going to do ? It appears the government might not want to lose the next election after all and Ed's doing nothing to win it. Call it quits and let the LDs hold the blues to account, at least they get results without bankrupting the country.
Really what is the point of Labour ? Care to give a reply ?
God, I'm nervous. Feck knows how he feels.
Are you Gabble in disguise?
Eric Kaufmann @epkaufm
ONS LS: London white British working class leaving London at faster rate than professionals. Some indication of trend toward widening gap
now as to that leaders debate bet, how about this:
a £10 bet at evens that Cameron will participate in the leaders' debates
assumptions: if they don't happen you win, if there is any number of debates and he participates I win, if there is any number of debates with the leaders of LibDem and Lab and not Cameron you win, if there is a "special" debate with the leaders of any three (!) of LibDem, Labour, UKIP, SNP and not Cameron you win. Debates to be defined as debate format (eg. not if Clegg/EdM are both guests on Newsnight, etc).
If you ask me, the point of Labour is to strive to produce a society in which there is equality of opportunity, and to seek to do something about it when they are in power. Labour should also be a party built around internationalism and the idea that people and countries are stronger when they work together. If the reforms that EdM announced yesterday are seen through to conclusion (a big if) I think that Labour will be in a far better position to become this kind of party.
Because otherwise I really don't see that your supposition that Cam will try to avoid them has any merit whatsoever.
Ever wondered how many spies the UK has? In 2011/12 GCHQ employed 6,132 people, MI5 3,961 and MI6 3,200. Figures in today's ISC report
(Though you really shouldnt be surprised that tim cant stand him given tim's own brand of politics.)
It leaves Labour as the continuity coalition at the next election, though I expect that the Tories will run with a more right wing manifesto. So the political centre shifts rightwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
https://twitter.com/dlknowles/status/354890013655330816/photo/1
As for your definition well at least you're prepared to give it a go which the party apparatchiks have chickened off doing. However what you say Labour stands for is showing your age. Little of what you propose resembles the modern Labour party. it might have been Labour fifty years ago, but today Labour is primarily a sectional interest group for the Public sector, middle class ideologues and minority pressure groups and is basing it's election plans around getting those people mobilised to vote for it. The principles of a modern forward looking party have long gone and aren't coming back. Porkbarrellissimo.
I think 'spies' might be a little overenthusiastic! I wonder how many would describe their job as as being in an true intelligence capacity. I'm sure these organisations must have cleaners and other support staff, PAs, HR people, and so on.
Unfortunately the young Yorkshireman chose the wrong target. Mr and Mrs Billy Bragg hardly count as "white-flight"....