Osborne will go into the next election having increased welfare spending. A failure
Again, you argue with a point I am not making. Why do you keep doing this? Stop. It's dull.
Surely it's obvious why he keeps doing this. It's the same reason as his repeated attempts at ridiculous catch phrases like "Family Man Dave". He's not interested in honest debate, but he is a partisan activist that is trying to get memes started by repetition. That's also why he never concedes a point, because the spin doctors tell people to never be on the defensive.
Going by the date of that article the councillor would still be bankrupt. If he is the subject of a bankruptcy restriction order then he is not an eligible candidate and any election where he won would be void s 426A of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Whether such an order is made (and its effect is far wider than Parliament) depends on the conduct that leads to the bankruptcy.
Curiously the law in Scotland is different from England in this area. A Scot would have 6 months to get the sequestration annulled.
I did actually notice that but thought there was some leeway in English law too.
Something about the distinction of being an undischarged bankrupt or not?
Could be wrong though and I'd happily be corrected.
“As far as I can tell he's still the councillor and he's listed as that on a UKIP site.”
Cheers for the reply Mick P – Just wondering why Mr Senior needs to do the whole attack/smear thing if Mr Potts is not the UKIP candidate that’s all? -
"When? All the time! SNP lines are very rare. As to being left of Labour that is hardly possible with Ed Milliband at the top. Unless of course you are a Marxist!"
I never use "SNP lines"? Have you told the rest of your PB Tory brethren, who spend half their waking existence moaning that I never bloody shut up about the SNP and Scottish independence?
As to your point about Ed Miliband...oh dear. When you truly start to believe your own hysterical propaganda, that's a grave sign indeed. Miliband showed some encouraging signs of leftiness during his leadership campaign, but since then it's been a very different story, and indeed on some subjects Labour have maintained quite a nasty right-wing stance.
Until Labour come up with a critique that revolves less around opposing cuts to welfare and more about how to organise welfare more effectively, Labour are going to be punched all around the ring on this topic.
Exactly the point that friends of Labour such as Riddell, Rawnsley, Rentoul and Watt are making.
Interesting that our "SNP posters" cannot even bring themselves to criticise Labour on its weak positioning on welfare. Are you chaps in the right party?
As to being left of Labour that is hardly possible with Ed Milliband at the top. Unless of course you are a Marxist!
We do still have to keep teaching you the basics don't we? "One nation" isn't a labour slogan little Ed thought up all by himself. It's a stolen tory one. When little Ed was comparing himself to Thatcher he wasn't doing that to appeal to the left and certainly not to very many people at all in scotland.
“As far as I can tell he's still the councillor and he's listed as that on a UKIP site.”
Cheers for the reply Mick P – Just wondering why Mr Senior needs to do the whole attack/smear thing if Mr Potts is not the UKIP candidate that’s all? -
I am not smearing anyone simply pointing out that Mike's comment that UKIP have a councillor on the council is not the plus that he seems to indicate , All my comments on Mr Potts are fully verifiable .
"Interesting that our "SNP posters" cannot even bring themselves to criticise Labour on its weak positioning on welfare. Are you chaps in the right party?"
Are you a comedian? I wrote an article in the International Business Times in December lambasting Labour's stance on welfare, specifically Atos and ESA. Here it is, for your delectation -
I presume it is wilful blindness rather than rank stupidity, but none of those professing horror at the Mail's Philpott headline or Osborne's very measured comments seems to have understood that no-one is saying that the welfare system, rather than Philpott and his depraved accomplices, is responsible for the children's deaths. The point being made is the very reasonable - one would have thought utterly uncontroversial - one that the welfare system should not have subsidised and encouraged Philpott's lifestyle.
Not a difficult distinction for anyone over about six years old, is it?
“As far as I can tell he's still the councillor and he's listed as that on a UKIP site.”
Cheers for the reply Mick P – Just wondering why Mr Senior needs to do the whole attack/smear thing if Mr Potts is not the UKIP candidate that’s all? -
maybe because he was mentioned. And the mention could have interpretated (but maybe not) as a possible candidate suggestion. And so he provided a background of the individual to give a broader knowledge to posters who may not have time to google him around.
Mr. Socrates, sounds reminiscent of Brown's strategy (which proved more effective than it deserved to be) of relentlessly banging on about the same message, no matter how unrealistic, misleading or plain deceitful.
"One nation" isn't a labour slogan little Ed thought up all by himself. It's a stolen tory one. When little Ed was comparing himself to Thatcher he wasn't doing that to appeal to the left and certainly not to very many people at all in scotland.
One nation is not a rightwing line and is open for all who believe in a single UK to use. Which would not include me, as I agree with the SNP drive for independence.
Nah, the Scots are just a little bit slower on the uptake. They'll get there in the end.
SeanT you overlook the fact that James and MickPork are fighting hard to put forward Labourite views so that Scotland will vote for independence... Shirley schome mishtake?
Whereas you overlook the fact that you are fighting hard to put forward BNP views... Shirley schome mishtake? We can do this all day every day if you insist.
I presume it is wilful blindness rather than rank stupidity, but none of those professing horror at the Mail's Philpott headline or Osborne's very measured comments seems to have understood that no-one is saying that the welfare system, rather than Philpott and his depraved accomplices, is responsible for the children's deaths. The point being made is the very reasonable - one would have thought utterly uncontroversial - one that the welfare system should not have subsidised and encouraged Philpott's lifestyle.
Not a difficult distinction for anyone over about six years old, is it?
Indeed - GO's comments are welcome - I think the main issue that the left has is GO is a) posh and b) has the temerity to speak to the media. Remember their favourite CoTE stayed in a bunker for 10 years.
Anyone spotted anyone from the Labour front bench this week - are they all on the same train ?
Thankyou for conceding that this privilege is at the discretion of wider society, and can be withdrawn.
If that is the case, are the right to life, or indeed, the right not to be subjected to torture, privileges that can be withdrawn at the discretion of wider society? And if not, why not?
The position of Her Majesty's opposition (so far as I can make out) appears to be that the likes of Philpott are collateral damage. OK, there are a few sheisters, but they are a necessary evil if the vast majority of deserving cases are not to lose out.
If that is indeed their position, then they should say that.
Philpott could easily be painted as the product of the kind of massively unequal societies thrown up by economies that hysterically attempt to do away with social safety nets (like here in the UK and in the US).
The bloke was sick in the head. He was also used by the media who extracted profitable copy out of him to some extent. What benefits he got had nothing to do with the fact the man is so up himself, and so deluded that he couldn't even make the connection between starting a fire and the danger to his children's lives.
"If that is the case, are the right to life, or indeed, the right not to be subjected to torture, privileges that can be withdrawn at the discretion of wider society? And if not, why not?"
Under our system, of course they are, because fundamental human rights are not entrenched as they should be in a liberal democracy. The right to be fabulously wealthy through no merit or effort of your own is not a fundamental human right.
Whereas you overlook the fact that you are fighting hard to put forward BNP views... Shirley schome mishtake? We can do this all day every day if you insist.
Ho ho. My Sikh mates would like that! Since the BNP want Britain retained and I want an independent Scotland that is one of many many divergences.
"Some are stuck in falsehood, and false are the rewards they receive" (Sikh saying).
Going by the date of that article the councillor would still be bankrupt. If he is the subject of a bankruptcy restriction order then he is not an eligible candidate and any election where he won would be void s 426A of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Whether such an order is made (and its effect is far wider than Parliament) depends on the conduct that leads to the bankruptcy.
Curiously the law in Scotland is different from England in this area. A Scot would have 6 months to get the sequestration annulled.
I did actually notice that but thought there was some leeway in English law too.
Something about the distinction of being an undischarged bankrupt or not?
Could be wrong though and I'd happily be corrected.
There no longer seems to be a disqualification simply by being sequestrated. The disqualification only applies if someone, usually the trustee, has applied to the court for a restriction order. Schedule 4A of the 1986 Act says:
(1) The court shall grant an application for a bankruptcy restrictions order if it thinks it appropriate having regard to the conduct of the bankrupt (whether before or after the making of the bankruptcy order).
(2) The court shall, in particular, take into account any of the following kinds of behaviour on the part of the bankrupt—
(a) failing to keep records which account for a loss of property by the bankrupt, or by a business carried on by him, where the loss occurred in the period beginning 2 years before petition and ending with the date of the application;
(b) failing to produce records of that kind on demand by the official receiver or the trustee;
(c) entering into a transaction at an undervalue;
(d) giving a preference;
(e) making an excessive pension contribution;
(f) a failure to supply goods or services which were wholly or partly paid for which gave rise to a claim provable in the bankruptcy;
(g) trading at a time before commencement of the bankruptcy when the bankrupt knew or ought to have known that he was himself to be unable to pay his debts;
(h) incurring, before commencement of the bankruptcy, a debt which the bankrupt had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay;
(i) failing to account satisfactorily to the court, the official receiver or the trustee for a loss of property or for an insufficiency of property to meet bankruptcy debts;
(j) carrying on any gambling, rash and hazardous speculation or unreasonable extravagance which may have materially contributed to or increased the extent of the bankruptcy or which took place between presentation of the petition and commencement of the bankruptcy;
(k) neglect of business affairs of a kind which may have materially contributed to or increased the extent of the bankruptcy;
(l) fraud or fraudulent breach of trust;
(m) failing to cooperate with the official receiver or the trustee.
(3) The court shall also, in particular, consider whether the bankrupt was an undischarged bankrupt at some time during the period of six years ending with the date of the bankruptcy to which the application relates.
I have no idea if this was done in this case although the article refers to suggests it might have been possible. Either way he is not looking an obvious candidate.
"Interesting that our "SNP posters" cannot even bring themselves to criticise Labour on its weak positioning on welfare. Are you chaps in the right party?"
Are you a comedian? I wrote an article in the International Business Times in December lambasting Labour's stance on welfare, specifically Atos and ESA. Here it is, for your delectation -
Laughable isn't it? Perhaps he still hasn't even grasped why I call him little Ed yet. It's hardly a term of affection, it a measure of his stature as a leader. He is weak and ineffectual and only escaped the wrath of the Blairites by pandering to them as well as the good fortune of being gifted a 10 point lead by the incompetent Osbrowne. Otherwise it wouldn't just be amusing idiots like Dan Hodges wanting him out, it would be most of his own MPs.
He wont reverse cuts and doesn't have a clue what benefits he will keep as well as the repulsive shambolic ATOS, which, lest we forget, labour brought in.
It's written in atrocious politician-speak, which is a shame because when you burrow into it, there are some sensible points:
"But the centre-left needs to think again too. Fiscal constraint creates a fundamentally new context and we need to go much deeper than a series of "offers" to tempt voters to the ballot box. Take, for example, our historic goal of ending child poverty. Before New Labour came to office, the previous government had doubled the number of children living in poverty. The Blair/Brown governments reversed this tide, raising the incomes of poor families and benefiting millions of children. However, this mission did not generate enough real energy in the country or capture the public imagination. In many people's eyes, this transformative vision became reduced to extensions to tax credits, in place of what should have been a national mobilisation of efforts and resources where everyone had a contribution to make.
This would still have meant government having a vital role to play, and raising family incomes would have remained crucial. But, arguably, advancing towards a system of high-quality and affordable childcare, a more aggressive approach to low pay, and action to address the rising cost of living and personal debt might have had greater policy prominence. Stronger connections might also have been made to the value of time for family life, the protection of space for childhood and importance of parental responsibilities. With more than half of poor children living in a working household, the economic and labour market roots of child poverty might have been confronted more directly."
@JamesKelly That simply depends on how you go about defining fundamental human rights. Doing it objectively is nigh on impossible. Ultimately, what constitutes a "fundamental human right" is nothing more than a subjective value judgment. Most in the human rights' industry would nevertheless recognise that enjoyment of a person's possessions is a qualified human right, in the same way that not being arbitrarily detained is.
I have no idea if this was done in this case although the article refers to suggests it might have been possible. Either way he is not looking an obvious candidate.
Can't argue with that. He's problematic in more ways than one. But knowing the council from the inside is still an advantage in a by-election, so perhaps that's what Mike means.
"Silly comparison - that involves private money not the taxpayers money."
No it doesn't. It's only private money because the law mandates it to be. The representatives of taxpayers could have much better use for it.
I think it's for the State to justify taking money from the taxpayer, rather than for the taxpayer to have to justify keeping what they earn from the State. -
no idea perhaps they think they are being post-modern.
Worse than that IMO is their "Life" supplement which is full of gushy pieces on holiday resorts and 100 grand watches.
I can't work out where it fits in their profile or the profile of their readers (who might wear 100 grand watches but want some critical element in articles about them)
Are the latter cases simply undeclared advertising? I know the Atlantic in the US got criticised for doing this and backpeddling.
Another Labour insider says it provides in insight into the political psychology of Ed’s inner circle. “You have to understand, they’re totally obsessed with the idea of posh people. They think it’s the defining issue. They think if they can paint Cameron as the posh guy, and Ed as an ordinary guy, they’ll win.”
It's pretty obvious that there are a number of posters on here that have a deep ingrained hatred of people of upper class or upper middle class background. Many of them can't refer to any policy mistake without bringing up people being "posh" or "fops". In terms of the latter word, it doesn't even mean posh person, but they're so desperate to find a slur they have to use it. It's almost akin to racism.
That's almost certainly a strategic error. There is no widespread dislike of the upper classes in this country.
Mr. Socrates, sounds reminiscent of Brown's strategy (which proved more effective than it deserved to be) of relentlessly banging on about the same message, no matter how unrealistic, misleading or plain deceitful.
True, Mr. D., but why would someone want to do the same on in the comments section of blog? Somebody spends twelve hours plus almost every day banging out the same old smears, lies, half-truths and personal attacks, but to what purpose? It beats me.
'Stealing'? So you're an Ayn Rand fanatic - "all taxation is theft"?
Whisper it softly in the presence of her worshippers, but Rand was one of those welfare 'scroungers' they get so upset about.
Critics of Social Security and Medicare frequently invoke the words and ideals of author and philosopher Ayn Rand, one of the fiercest critics of federal insurance programs. But a little-known fact is that Ayn Rand herself collected Social Security. She may also have received Medicare benefits.
An interview recently surfaced that was conducted in 1998 by the Ayn Rand Institute with a social worker who says she helped Rand and her husband, Frank O’Connor, sign up for Social Security and Medicare in 1974.
Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits. A similar FOI request was unable to either prove or disprove the Medicare claim.
Between December 1974 and her death in March 1982, Rand collected a total of $11,002 in monthly Social Security payments. O’Connor received $2,943 between December 1974 and his death in November 1979.
According to a spokesman in the Baltimore headquarters of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Rand and O’Connor were eligible for both Part A, which provides hospital coverage, and Part B, medical. The spokesman said their eligibility for Part B means they did apply for Medicare; however, he said he was not authorized to release any documentation and referred the request to the CMS New York regional office. That office said they could not locate any records related to Rand and O’Connor.
In defence of James, his International Business Times article is an entertaining read. I particularly enjoyed the bit in the first paragraph about the tyranny of the unionist inverted commas, although I'm struggling to remember a single article which supports the theory.
Mr. Socrates, sounds reminiscent of Brown's strategy (which proved more effective than it deserved to be) of relentlessly banging on about the same message, no matter how unrealistic, misleading or plain deceitful.
True, Mr. D., but why would someone want to do the same on in the comments section of blog? Somebody spends twelve hours plus almost every day banging out the same old smears, lies, half-truths and personal attacks, but to what purpose? It beats me.
It could be that it helps give meaning to those with pathetic lives that they're part of some wider ideological struggle. Or perhaps it's just craving for some kind of communication because they're lonely. It's not unknown for a poster to desperately slur others that have made it clear they're not responding any more, for instance, in a frenzied last attempt to get attention.
This is just silly. A central element of theft is that it is the unlawful appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. A tax can only be charged if it is authorised by law. The result is that taxation cannot be considered theft.
“As far as I can tell he's still the councillor and he's listed as that on a UKIP site.”
I am not smearing anyone simply pointing out that Mike's comment that UKIP have a councillor on the council is not the plus that he seems to indicate , All my comments on Mr Potts are fully verifiable .
No MarkSenior, you were smearing UKIP as a party of like minded individuals as Mr Potts and that patiently isn't true and a lie too boot. Typical Goebbels big lie tactics.
Things are going from bad to worse for Hollande as his economy shrinks at a frightening rate and the minister in charge of tax evasion turns out to have secret accounts in the Caymens. According to Bloomberg he is to introduce changes on April 15th like this: "Hollande said last week he wants to change unemployment benefits to include more incentives for the jobless to return to work, a cut in childcare benefits for the wealthy and an increase in the length of working lives to help stem a pensions deficit."
So unpacking that a little, Ed's shining icon wants to reform benefits to improve the incentive to work (sorta like IDS); he wants to cut CB for the wealthy (sorta like the Coalition) and he wants to extend the retirement age (as per the Coalition).
It really would be helpful if Ed clarified what part of Hollande's policies he is in favour of. It would help sort out what he is opposing of our government's plans. Osborne has not been nearly so aggressive in trying to reduce the deficit here: maybe that is the problem. New Labour slogan: Too little, too late? It would be more honest than their last one.
This is just silly. A central element of theft is that it is the unlawful appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. A tax can only be charged if it is authorised by law. The result is that taxation cannot be considered theft.
Indeed, but which law? The authors of the US Constitution, for instance, argued for a belief in natural law. Thus even though the Intolerable Acts were passed by parliament and got the King's signature, they were still illegitimate as they infringed upon natural rights. John Locke, of course, argued that the three most fundamental rights were life, liberty and property.
"This is just silly. A central element of theft is that it is the unlawful appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. A tax can only be charged if it is authorised by law. The result is that taxation cannot be considered theft."
Try telling that to the holder of a Cypriot bank account which had more than 100K euros in it.
“As far as I can tell he's still the councillor and he's listed as that on a UKIP site.”
I am not smearing anyone simply pointing out that Mike's comment that UKIP have a councillor on the council is not the plus that he seems to indicate , All my comments on Mr Potts are fully verifiable .
No MarkSenior, you were smearing UKIP as a party of like minded individuals as Mr Potts and that patiently isn't true and a lie too boot. Typical Goebbels big lie tactics.
Oh really , but at least I do not welch on bets made on here and have to post under a new posting name .
" In many people's eyes, this transformative vision became reduced to extensions to tax credits, in place of what should have been a national mobilisation of efforts and resources where everyone had a contribution to make."
Cruddas and Byrne seem to now be accepting the IDS / CSJ line that simply giving families a few extra £s a month to raise them from just below the poverty line to just above the poverty line was not really dealing with poverty.
"Someone who is nudged just above this threshold, with an extra £10 a week, is deemed to be “lifted out of poverty”, although the people concerned would be astounded to hear themselves so described. If they had a family, then their children would be described as being “lifted out of poverty”. So, by precision-bombing the right people with tax credits, you could claim to have lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.
This disingenuous scam proceeded for years, delivering applause lines in political speeches at an almighty cost. Those at the bottom who had no chance of crossing this threshold were forgotten, and real poverty was entrenched."
No MarkSenior, you were smearing UKIP as a party of like minded individuals as Mr Potts and that patiently isn't true and a lie too boot. Typical Goebbels big lie tactics.
Can we have that framed?
Good thing he wasn't on welfare. Or was he? *gasp*
As the hilarious tea party tories say " It's almost akin to racism."
Aw, are PBTories upset that SNP posters are beastly to the poor, defenseless Tories and don't spend all their time linking to Dan Hodges and Guido, posting Daily Mail articles, and re-tweeting Harry Cole attacks on Labour?
@Socrates The problem with "natural law", "fundamental human rights" and equivalent terms is that it is nigh on impossible to agree on what they constitute. The colonists may have rebelled against the king's sovereign majesty, but the system of government ultimately created in the United States depended on positive law alone. The Bill of Rights was not derived from natural law, but was created by (a form of) common consent, and could be repealed by a supermajority. The irony is that there is no room under the United States Constitution for resistance to a tyrannical government based on an individual's view that the government has contravened the dictates of natural law, or the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This is just silly. A central element of theft is that it is the unlawful appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. A tax can only be charged if it is authorised by law. The result is that taxation cannot be considered theft.
"Unlawful appropriation"? Tish and pish, Mr. Town, as you should well know. Theft requires the "Dishonest" appropriation ... (Section 1 Theft Act 1968).
Like every left wing commentator I've read on welfare, an answer that completely avoids saying what labour would do.
Are you saying the current system is fit for purpose? Are you saying that we just have to live with a few philpotts so that genuinely poor families don;t suffer? Or are there, in the light of the Philpott revelations, changes that labour might make.
This is just silly. A central element of theft is that it is the unlawful appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. A tax can only be charged if it is authorised by law. The result is that taxation cannot be considered theft.
So, for example, wartime confiscation of Jewish property in Europe was not theft as it had "law" behind it.
Mr. Socrates, sounds reminiscent of Brown's strategy (which proved more effective than it deserved to be) of relentlessly banging on about the same message, no matter how unrealistic, misleading or plain deceitful.
True, Mr. D., but why would someone want to do the same on in the comments section of blog? Somebody spends twelve hours plus almost every day banging out the same old smears, lies, half-truths and personal attacks, but to what purpose? It beats me.
It could be that it helps give meaning to those with pathetic lives that they're part of some wider ideological struggle. Or perhaps it's just craving for some kind of communication because they're lonely. It's not unknown for a poster to desperately slur others that have made it clear they're not responding any more, for instance, in a frenzied last attempt to get attention.
Sad buggers, you mean who have neither the gumption nor person skills even to go out a join a political party? Yeah, I can see that argument. Still lets us rejoice that thanks to the Blessed Edmund in Tokyo's wonderful widget we don't actually have to read their outpourings of bile and negativity.
Like every left wing commentator I've read on welfare, an answer that completely avoids saying what labour would do.
Are you saying the current system is fit for purpose? Are you saying that we just have to live with a few philpotts so that genuinely poor families don;t suffer? Or are there, in the light of the Philpott revelations, changes that labour might make.
They haven't a clue. Like every leftie they just want to throw money at the problem in the hope it might go away.
This is just silly. A central element of theft is that it is the unlawful appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. A tax can only be charged if it is authorised by law. The result is that taxation cannot be considered theft.
"Unlawful appropriation"? Tish and pish, Mr. Town, as you should well know. Theft requires the "Dishonest" appropriation ... (Section 1 Theft Act 1968).
It's the unlawful and dishonest appropriate of property belonging to another with an intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. (Well, usually the owner.)
This is just silly. A central element of theft is that it is the unlawful appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. A tax can only be charged if it is authorised by law. The result is that taxation cannot be considered theft.
"Unlawful appropriation"? Tish and pish, Mr. Town, as you should well know. Theft requires the "Dishonest" appropriation ... (Section 1 Theft Act 1968).
It's the unlawful and dishonest appropriate of property belonging to another with an intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. (Well, usually the owner.)
I had to be dogmatic but in English Law it isn't. Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 states:
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
No mention of the word unlawful, you see, and really there can't be. In defining what is an unlawful act using the term unlawful would get one into a circular bit of logic.
I presume it is wilful blindness rather than rank stupidity, but none of those professing horror at the Mail's Philpott headline or Osborne's very measured comments seems to have understood that no-one is saying that the welfare system, rather than Philpott and his depraved accomplices, is responsible for the children's deaths. The point being made is the very reasonable - one would have thought utterly uncontroversial - one that the welfare system should not have subsidised and encouraged Philpott's lifestyle.
Not a difficult distinction for anyone over about six years old, is it?
Come on, Richard. The point is that making Philpott the example emotively conflates the quite separate issues of responsibility for the death of six children and unreasonable accumulation of benefits. The headline "Product of Welfare UK" about does in fact appear to suggest there's a causal link: get enough benefits and you may end up like Philpott.
As I said before, I don't owe you a bean tim: 1. I never bet with you any way on the subject of 4 year parliaments. 2. The £50 each that I do owe will be paid over to Mike or Peter at Dirty Dicks, if the recipients aren't there, and into their hands if they are. So 3: Shut your miserable trap.
I think what Cyprus has again showed is how unready Europe was for a single currency. Without inflation as a means of, firstly, actually lowering the real value of government debt, loans, and savings, and, secondly, providing a way of managing expectations in the medium term, Cyrpus has neither the tools at its disposal, the confidence the convince the markets, nor was in the right place.
I presume it is wilful blindness rather than rank stupidity, but none of those professing horror at the Mail's Philpott headline or Osborne's very measured comments seems to have understood that no-one is saying that the welfare system, rather than Philpott and his depraved accomplices, is responsible for the children's deaths. The point being made is the very reasonable - one would have thought utterly uncontroversial - one that the welfare system should not have subsidised and encouraged Philpott's lifestyle.
Not a difficult distinction for anyone over about six years old, is it?
Come on, Richard. The point is that making Philpott the example emotively conflates the quite separate issues of responsibility for the death of six children and unreasonable accumulation of benefits. The headline "Product of Welfare UK" about does in fact appear to suggest there's a causal link: get enough benefits and you may end up like Philpott.
Hmm, I think it is one of those classic cases where the Header is saying something subtlety different (Header = NickP's take, Body = RichardN's take) to the body of the article.
@HurstLlama Yes, you have turned to s. 1 of the 1968 Act for the basic definition of theft, and dishonesty is of course an element of theft. If we are being technical, you could of course bring up the speech of Lord Steyn in R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241 at p. 253, where he stated, in a quite different context, that the definition of theft ought not to be interpreted as if unlawfully preceded dishonestly.
The point I was making is that theft, like murder, requires an unlawful act to occur. If a tax is charged by and under the authority of Parliament, in law, the money is owed to Her Majesty the Queen and the public revenue, and those evading the tax are guilty of cheating the public revenue. The property ceases to be owned in law by them, and is the Crown's.
I presume it is wilful blindness rather than rank stupidity, but none of those professing horror at the Mail's Philpott headline or Osborne's very measured comments seems to have understood that no-one is saying that the welfare system, rather than Philpott and his depraved accomplices, is responsible for the children's deaths. The point being made is the very reasonable - one would have thought utterly uncontroversial - one that the welfare system should not have subsidised and encouraged Philpott's lifestyle.
Not a difficult distinction for anyone over about six years old, is it?
Come on, Richard. The point is that making Philpott the example emotively conflates the quite separate issues of responsibility for the death of six children and unreasonable accumulation of benefits. The headline "Product of Welfare UK" about does in fact appear to suggest there's a causal link: get enough benefits and you may end up like Philpott.
Precisely. No welfare system is perfect and it is inevitable that some undeserving people will benefit. However if there was no welfare system many people would be condemned to absolute poverty and destitution like that which existed in the 1930s. That should not be acceptable in a developed country in the 21st century.
Come on, Richard. The point is that making Philpott the example emotively conflates the quite separate issues of responsibility for the death of six children and unreasonable accumulation of benefits. The headline "Product of Welfare UK" about does in fact appear to suggest there's a causal link: get enough benefits and you may end up like Philpott.
The comments (and indeed the Mail front-page article) have been about the lifestyle, not the deaths of the children, but do feel free to argue that a benefits system which paid Philpott the equivalent of a £100K salary doesn't need any changes.
None of this governments welfare changes impact on the Philpott situation you do know that?
If that's the case then Labour should say so, because the government may be hitting the wrong targets. But labour isn;t saying anything. Let's face it, Labour don;t want to reform the welfare system at all.
a benefits system which paid Philpott the equivalent of a £100K
That figure of £100,000 gross is based on a net income of £67,000, which includes the £14,000 gross earnings as cleaners of Ms Philpott and Ms Willis. Clearly, someone has questionable mathematical skills at the Daily Mail.
@Socrates The problem with "natural law", "fundamental human rights" and equivalent terms is that it is nigh on impossible to agree on what they constitute. The colonists may have rebelled against the king's sovereign majesty, but the system of government ultimately created in the United States depended on positive law alone. The Bill of Rights was not derived from natural law, but was created by (a form of) common consent, and could be repealed by a supermajority. The irony is that there is no room under the United States Constitution for resistance to a tyrannical government based on an individual's view that the government has contravened the dictates of natural law, or the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You're right that it is impossible to get unanimous agreement on what "natural law" or "fundamental human rights" constitute. The same is true of what right and wrong are. That doesn't mean we should reject the concept. What you need is a free and open discussion so that the bulk of society can discuss and agree on what they can.
You are incorrect in the idea that the US was founded on positive law alone. It was made very clear during the writing of the Bill of Rights that the rights talked about were pre-existing, and the explicit mention of certain rights did not imply that other rights do not exist.
Of course there is no room in a society for individual violent resistance. But there are certainly amendments that give basis for resistance to tyrannical government if there is widespread feeling within society. The second amendment springs to mind.
a benefits system which paid Philpott the equivalent of a £100K
That figure of £100,000 gross is based on a net income of £67,000, which includes the £14,000 gross earnings as cleaners of Ms Philpott and Ms Willis. Clearly, someone has questionable mathematical skills at the Daily Mail.
The idea that a family can earn even £39k of benefits is appalling. It's getting towards twice the average wage.
Are you saying that we just have to live with a few philpotts so that genuinely poor families don;t suffer?
Obviously. If we accept that there should be a safety net that makes it possible to exist, then there simply is no alternative I'm afraid. (Though we know benefit fraud is very rare, luckily)
Of course there are loads of changes that could make the welfare system more efficient.
-More tapered / generous benefits on return to work to ease the expensive (sometimes prohibitively so) transition back to work.
-More work-incentivised childcare for parents.
-Better incentivised training / education, especially for the young. Proper training too, not these rancid private sector target-driven cowboys like A4E.
-'Supply side' efforts to make work pay, like a living wage, more meaningful apprenticeships.
Of course, the Tories are interested in none of this.
In fact, the Right have nothing intelligent to say on welfare at all. It's all cuts, Daily Mail headlines, scaremongering, myths, and more cuts. Dumb, nasty and counter-productive.
Actually I think the Philpott type family (if such a thing exists) will be very difficult to stop the spending on.
When the government rewards the workless for having ever more children, how can you withdraw that reward? Its the children who will suffer, not the parents.
a benefits system which paid Philpott the equivalent of a £100K
That figure of £100,000 gross is based on a net income of £67,000, which includes the £14,000 gross earnings as cleaners of Ms Philpott and Ms Willis. Clearly, someone has questionable mathematical skills at the Daily Mail.
To include the £14k is indeed a nonsense we can't expect employers to withold cash to people on the basis it might be heading to AN other's bank account !
@Socrates The United States Constitution is as a matter of fact and law dependent upon positive law. Merely because concepts may have been claimed for the American system, or rhetoric used by the founders, should not stop us seeing the wood from the trees. There is no room in the American system for any form of resistance (whether individual or collective) to government. Texas v White springs to mind here.
If we accept that there should be a safety net that makes it possible to exist, then there simply is no alternative I'm afraid. (Though we know benefit fraud is very rare, luckily)
OK that's fair enough, why doesn't Ed Milliband just come out and say he's not prepared to penalise the children of workless families for the sake of hitting a few philpotts. The system stays the same.
Philpott wasn't a fraudster. He gained his benefits entirely legitimately,
@Socrates The United States Constitution is as a matter of fact and law dependent upon positive law. Merely because concepts may have been claimed for the American system, or rhetoric used by the founders, should not stop us seeing the wood from the trees. There is no room in the American system for any form of resistance (whether individual or collective) to government. Texas v White springs to mind here.
It just enshrines the basis for a well regulated militia so the people can form resistance.
Comments
I did actually notice that but thought there was some leeway in English law too.
Something about the distinction of being an undischarged bankrupt or not?
Could be wrong though and I'd happily be corrected.
Cheers for the reply Mick P – Just wondering why Mr Senior needs to do the whole attack/smear thing if Mr Potts is not the UKIP candidate that’s all? -
I never use "SNP lines"? Have you told the rest of your PB Tory brethren, who spend half their waking existence moaning that I never bloody shut up about the SNP and Scottish independence?
As to your point about Ed Miliband...oh dear. When you truly start to believe your own hysterical propaganda, that's a grave sign indeed. Miliband showed some encouraging signs of leftiness during his leadership campaign, but since then it's been a very different story, and indeed on some subjects Labour have maintained quite a nasty right-wing stance.
what a brilliant race.
"One nation" isn't a labour slogan little Ed thought up all by himself. It's a stolen tory one. When little Ed was comparing himself to Thatcher he wasn't doing that to appeal to the left and certainly not to very many people at all in scotland.
I am not smearing anyone simply pointing out that Mike's comment that UKIP have a councillor on the council is not the plus that he seems to indicate , All my comments on Mr Potts are fully verifiable .
Are you a comedian? I wrote an article in the International Business Times in December lambasting Labour's stance on welfare, specifically Atos and ESA. Here it is, for your delectation -
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/418063/20121224/scotland-independence-referendum-alex-salmond.htm
Not a difficult distinction for anyone over about six years old, is it?
No complaints about mine. Ran his race but not good enough. Not sure he really does stay now. Read it wrong.
Hhhhmmmm ....
Of course, Mike's favourite Ukipper - Lord Monckton
South Shields obviously needs a hereditary peer to meet their needs.
An interesting candidate with interesting views in an interesting party for interesting times.
Worth a interest Mike ??
Anyone spotted anyone from the Labour front bench this week - are they all on the same train ?
The bloke was sick in the head. He was also used by the media who extracted profitable copy out of him to some extent. What benefits he got had nothing to do with the fact the man is so up himself, and so deluded that he couldn't even make the connection between starting a fire and the danger to his children's lives.
Under our system, of course they are, because fundamental human rights are not entrenched as they should be in a liberal democracy. The right to be fabulously wealthy through no merit or effort of your own is not a fundamental human right.
"Some are stuck in falsehood, and false are the rewards they receive" (Sikh saying).
Are women and paupers some of your best friends as well?
(1) The court shall grant an application for a bankruptcy restrictions order if it thinks it appropriate having regard to the conduct of the bankrupt (whether before or after the making of the bankruptcy order).
(2) The court shall, in particular, take into account any of the following kinds of behaviour on the part of the bankrupt—
(a) failing to keep records which account for a loss of property by the bankrupt, or by a business carried on by him, where the loss occurred in the period beginning 2 years before petition and ending with the date of the application;
(b) failing to produce records of that kind on demand by the official receiver or the trustee;
(c) entering into a transaction at an undervalue;
(d) giving a preference;
(e) making an excessive pension contribution;
(f) a failure to supply goods or services which were wholly or partly paid for which gave rise to a claim provable in the bankruptcy;
(g) trading at a time before commencement of the bankruptcy when the bankrupt knew or ought to have known that he was himself to be unable to pay his debts;
(h) incurring, before commencement of the bankruptcy, a debt which the bankrupt had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay;
(i) failing to account satisfactorily to the court, the official receiver or the trustee for a loss of property or for an insufficiency of property to meet bankruptcy debts;
(j) carrying on any gambling, rash and hazardous speculation or unreasonable extravagance which may have materially contributed to or increased the extent of the bankruptcy or which took place between presentation of the petition and commencement of the bankruptcy;
(k) neglect of business affairs of a kind which may have materially contributed to or increased the extent of the bankruptcy;
(l) fraud or fraudulent breach of trust;
(m) failing to cooperate with the official receiver or the trustee.
(3) The court shall also, in particular, consider whether the bankrupt was an undischarged bankrupt at some time during the period of six years ending with the date of the bankruptcy to which the application relates.
I have no idea if this was done in this case although the article refers to suggests it might have been possible. Either way he is not looking an obvious candidate.
He wont reverse cuts and doesn't have a clue what benefits he will keep as well as the repulsive shambolic ATOS, which, lest we forget, labour brought in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/04/labour-new-politics-of-society
It's written in atrocious politician-speak, which is a shame because when you burrow into it, there are some sensible points:
"But the centre-left needs to think again too. Fiscal constraint creates a fundamentally new context and we need to go much deeper than a series of "offers" to tempt voters to the ballot box. Take, for example, our historic goal of ending child poverty. Before New Labour came to office, the previous government had doubled the number of children living in poverty. The Blair/Brown governments reversed this tide, raising the incomes of poor families and benefiting millions of children. However, this mission did not generate enough real energy in the country or capture the public imagination. In many people's eyes, this transformative vision became reduced to extensions to tax credits, in place of what should have been a national mobilisation of efforts and resources where everyone had a contribution to make.
This would still have meant government having a vital role to play, and raising family incomes would have remained crucial. But, arguably, advancing towards a system of high-quality and affordable childcare, a more aggressive approach to low pay, and action to address the rising cost of living and personal debt might have had greater policy prominence. Stronger connections might also have been made to the value of time for family life, the protection of space for childhood and importance of parental responsibilities. With more than half of poor children living in a working household, the economic and labour market roots of child poverty might have been confronted more directly."
That simply depends on how you go about defining fundamental human rights. Doing it objectively is nigh on impossible. Ultimately, what constitutes a "fundamental human right" is nothing more than a subjective value judgment. Most in the human rights' industry would nevertheless recognise that enjoyment of a person's possessions is a qualified human right, in the same way that not being arbitrarily detained is.
'Stealing'? So you're an Ayn Rand fanatic - "all taxation is theft"?
Are the SNP suggesting 100% IT levels ? If not why not ?
Quite so. George Osborne's enjoyment of his ancestors' possessions, however, is philosophically more problematical.
From Marxist to feudalist between lunch and tea - my latest PB adventure.
Specifically, then, what current taxes don't constitute theft? How can you tell the difference?
But you avoided the IT tax question ? What is the SNP's IT policy ? 100% ?
You didn't read my comment carefully enough. I made no mention at all of money that people actually earn.
Whisper it softly in the presence of her worshippers, but Rand was one of those welfare 'scroungers' they get so upset about. Oh dear.
Did God mention that particular figure to Moses? Why is anything below that not theft? This is interesting stuff - please elaborate.
I have a human right to consider high % rates of taxation as tantamount to theft though ?
"Hollande said last week he wants to change unemployment benefits to include more incentives for the jobless to return to work, a cut in childcare benefits for the wealthy and an increase in the length of working lives to help stem a pensions deficit."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-03/hollande-seeks-to-contain-damage-from-ex-minister-s-bank-account.html
So unpacking that a little, Ed's shining icon wants to reform benefits to improve the incentive to work (sorta like IDS); he wants to cut CB for the wealthy (sorta like the Coalition) and he wants to extend the retirement age (as per the Coalition).
It really would be helpful if Ed clarified what part of Hollande's policies he is in favour of. It would help sort out what he is opposing of our government's plans. Osborne has not been nearly so aggressive in trying to reduce the deficit here: maybe that is the problem. New Labour slogan: Too little, too late? It would be more honest than their last one.
Try telling that to the holder of a Cypriot bank account which had more than 100K euros in it.
" In many people's eyes, this transformative vision became reduced to extensions to tax credits, in place of what should have been a national mobilisation of efforts and resources where everyone had a contribution to make."
Cruddas and Byrne seem to now be accepting the IDS / CSJ line that simply giving families a few extra £s a month to raise them from just below the poverty line to just above the poverty line was not really dealing with poverty.
"Someone who is nudged just above this threshold, with an extra £10 a week, is deemed to be “lifted out of poverty”, although the people concerned would be astounded to hear themselves so described. If they had a family, then their children would be described as being “lifted out of poverty”. So, by precision-bombing the right people with tax credits, you could claim to have lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.
This disingenuous scam proceeded for years, delivering applause lines in political speeches at an almighty cost. Those at the bottom who had no chance of crossing this threshold were forgotten, and real poverty was entrenched."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9145913/Sticking-with-Gordon-Browns-flawed-policy-keeps-people-in-poverty.html
Good thing he wasn't on welfare. Or was he? *gasp*
As the hilarious tea party tories say " It's almost akin to racism."
LOL
The problem with "natural law", "fundamental human rights" and equivalent terms is that it is nigh on impossible to agree on what they constitute. The colonists may have rebelled against the king's sovereign majesty, but the system of government ultimately created in the United States depended on positive law alone. The Bill of Rights was not derived from natural law, but was created by (a form of) common consent, and could be repealed by a supermajority. The irony is that there is no room under the United States Constitution for resistance to a tyrannical government based on an individual's view that the government has contravened the dictates of natural law, or the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"Unlawful appropriation"? Tish and pish, Mr. Town, as you should well know. Theft requires the "Dishonest" appropriation ... (Section 1 Theft Act 1968).
Like every left wing commentator I've read on welfare, an answer that completely avoids saying what labour would do.
Are you saying the current system is fit for purpose? Are you saying that we just have to live with a few philpotts so that genuinely poor families don;t suffer? Or are there, in the light of the Philpott revelations, changes that labour might make.
So, for example, wartime confiscation of Jewish property in Europe was not theft as it had "law" behind it.
Are you saying we have to make millions of genuinely poor families suffer to avoid having a few Philpotts?
Sad buggers, you mean who have neither the gumption nor person skills even to go out a join a political party? Yeah, I can see that argument. Still lets us rejoice that thanks to the Blessed Edmund in Tokyo's wonderful widget we don't actually have to read their outpourings of bile and negativity.
"Unlawful appropriation"? Tish and pish, Mr. Town, as you should well know. Theft requires the "Dishonest" appropriation ... (Section 1 Theft Act 1968).
It's the unlawful and dishonest appropriate of property belonging to another with an intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. (Well, usually the owner.)
Maybe I should stick to the All Weather.
'They think if they can paint Cameron as the posh guy, and Ed as an ordinary guy, they’ll win.”
That's hilarious and shows how out of touch they are.
An Oxbridge educated millionaire complete with trust fund,a £2.4 million house and a £400,000 mortgage,just an ordinary guy.
I had to be dogmatic but in English Law it isn't. Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 states:
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
No mention of the word unlawful, you see, and really there can't be. In defining what is an unlawful act using the term unlawful would get one into a circular bit of logic.
1. I never bet with you any way on the subject of 4 year parliaments.
2. The £50 each that I do owe will be paid over to Mike or Peter at Dirty Dicks, if the recipients aren't there, and into their hands if they are.
So 3: Shut your miserable trap.
Yes, you have turned to s. 1 of the 1968 Act for the basic definition of theft, and dishonesty is of course an element of theft. If we are being technical, you could of course bring up the speech of Lord Steyn in R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241 at p. 253, where he stated, in a quite different context, that the definition of theft ought not to be interpreted as if unlawfully preceded dishonestly.
The point I was making is that theft, like murder, requires an unlawful act to occur. If a tax is charged by and under the authority of Parliament, in law, the money is owed to Her Majesty the Queen and the public revenue, and those evading the tax are guilty of cheating the public revenue. The property ceases to be owned in law by them, and is the Crown's.
If that's the case then Labour should say so, because the government may be hitting the wrong targets. But labour isn;t saying anything. Let's face it, Labour don;t want to reform the welfare system at all.
Labour opposed that too.
All my past bets are notated and they were on the subject of coalition demise.
Can PtP post a view on this, or the two of you deal with it offline?
It's not very interesting for the rest of us.
You are incorrect in the idea that the US was founded on positive law alone. It was made very clear during the writing of the Bill of Rights that the rights talked about were pre-existing, and the explicit mention of certain rights did not imply that other rights do not exist.
Of course there is no room in a society for individual violent resistance. But there are certainly amendments that give basis for resistance to tyrannical government if there is widespread feeling within society. The second amendment springs to mind.
The idea that a family can earn even £39k of benefits is appalling. It's getting towards twice the average wage.
Of course there are loads of changes that could make the welfare system more efficient.
-More tapered / generous benefits on return to work to ease the expensive (sometimes prohibitively so) transition back to work.
-More work-incentivised childcare for parents.
-Better incentivised training / education, especially for the young. Proper training too, not these rancid private sector target-driven cowboys like A4E.
-'Supply side' efforts to make work pay, like a living wage, more meaningful apprenticeships.
Of course, the Tories are interested in none of this.
In fact, the Right have nothing intelligent to say on welfare at all. It's all cuts, Daily Mail headlines, scaremongering, myths, and more cuts. Dumb, nasty and counter-productive.
I agree.
When the government rewards the workless for having ever more children, how can you withdraw that reward? Its the children who will suffer, not the parents.
To include the £14k is indeed a nonsense we can't expect employers to withold cash to people on the basis it might be heading to AN other's bank account !
£53k net ? So around £77k or so ?
The United States Constitution is as a matter of fact and law dependent upon positive law. Merely because concepts may have been claimed for the American system, or rhetoric used by the founders, should not stop us seeing the wood from the trees. There is no room in the American system for any form of resistance (whether individual or collective) to government. Texas v White springs to mind here.
OK that's fair enough, why doesn't Ed Milliband just come out and say he's not prepared to penalise the children of workless families for the sake of hitting a few philpotts. The system stays the same.
Philpott wasn't a fraudster. He gained his benefits entirely legitimately,