The two are intertwined. The welfare system / payments enabled him to get into the position to commit the crime.
So, we abolish welfare because one evil childkiller abused the system, is that it? Or is a more reasoned response to say we need to get much, much tougher on those who abuse the system without penalising the vast majority who do not?
Where did I mention penalties? In your assumption and predetermined mind set.
Question: If benefits were limited would he have had 11 or however many children or did the system enable him to do it?
The two are intertwined. The welfare system / payments enabled him to get into the position to commit the crime.
So, we abolish welfare because one evil childkiller abused the system, is that it? Or is a more reasoned response to say we need to get much, much tougher on those who abuse the system without penalising the vast majority who do not?
Where did I mention penalties? In your assumption and predetermined mind set.
Question: If benefits were limited would he have had 11 or however many children or did the system enable him to do it?
He could quite easily have got multiple women pregnant whether there was a welfare system or not. It had no effect on his sperm count.
These figures essentially show why the country is bankrupt. When Tim points out for the next 100 times that the majority of those affected by housing benefit changes are "working" remember what this means.
What it means in many cases is that they are working more than 16 hours a week, that they pay little or no income tax and that their wage is then more than doubled by the tax payer. Put bluntly this "work" costs us a fortune.
The oft-repeated claim is that 93% of new housing benefit claimants are in work. But the word "new" distorts the picture considerably:
According to Factcheck, "What we can confirm from the DWP's statistics is that at least 18 per cent of Housing Benefit claimants are in employment , although this could be on either a full- or part-time basis. The DWP also concedes that, of the other claimants, some of them could well be working part-time too." http://fullfact.org/factchecks/one_in_eight_housing_benefit_claimants_unemployed-27479
The figures as quoted on CH4 News are a surprise. If a family of eleven without any visible means of support can earn £53,000 it explains something which has been puzzling me for some time. There are many religious families whose members run well into double figures who manage to live reasonably well without any visible bread winner. I always thought the welfare state only supported the first tree children.
I do think this is a gift for the Tories and I do wonder how this was ever allowed to get so out of hand. (Unless of course I'm missing something)
The number of benefit claimants with 8 or more children is I believe around 900 of which 180 have 10 or more . The number with 4 or more children is around just under 100,000 .
@DPJHodges: Tories want lots of stories tomorrow that have the phrases "Mick Philpott", "Welfare", "Labour defends welfare". They're going to get them.
But they don't work full time SO. The table applies to couples who work 16 or more hours between them. One of Tim's valid points, also shown by the HMRC table, is that they suffer marginal tax rates of 70% until the benefit is withdrawn so, as MikeL says, increasing their salary by £20K makes them only about £5K better off. It is a valid point but it is also inevitable when people are really living on benefits, not on what they earn.
The incentive to work full time is therefore missing under the present system. That is certainly one of the areas that needs attention. The tax credits need to be less generous and then less severely tapered so there is a greater incentive for the recipient to earn more either by working longer or getting a better paying job.
The two are intertwined. The welfare system / payments enabled him to get into the position to commit the crime.
So, we abolish welfare because one evil childkiller abused the system, is that it? Or is a more reasoned response to say we need to get much, much tougher on those who abuse the system without penalising the vast majority who do not?
Where did I mention penalties? In your assumption and predetermined mind set.
Question: If benefits were limited would he have had 11 or however many children or did the system enable him to do it?
He could quite easily have got multiple women pregnant whether there was a welfare system or not. It had no effect on his sperm count.
But with a different benefit system they would not have all lived with him creating his income. The system enabled his action.
This has nothing to do with child killers. I was watching Channel 4 News when Krishnan Guru-Murthy explained in simple terms how a family with eleven children legitimately get £53,000 from the state. The 'child murderer' was just a reason for giving that frankly gobsmacking fact.
I doubt many watching it weren't a little surprised and Labour would be well advised to forget Osborne and explain whether this is something they support and why.
I am genuinely astonished by the left's moral madness on welfare. As with the NHS, the benefits system seems to be sacrosanct; no criticism is allowed. All is perfect in the most perfect of Brownian worlds, except of course that even more money should be spent. Even to ask a question about why hundreds people may have died in appalling neglect in Mid Staffs, or why we ended up subsidising the depraved lifestyle of Philpott to such an extravagant degree, is proof only of the nastiness of the person who has the temerity to ask the question.
No wonder the last Labour government was such a disaster in respect of public services and welfare, given that is the attitude. It certainly doesn't bode well for any future Labour government that this attitude is still prevalent.
I think the Conservative manifesto will limit benefits to two children - for NEW children born 9 months after GE date.
What Cameron must do is say repeatedly how generous tax credits are.
Remember - I suggested the benefit cap on this website way, way before the Government announced it. Let's hope Dave is reading my advice again!!!
Yeah ok. Your only problem there is that over 5m families claim each of child tax credits, housing benefit, council tax benefit, and almost 8m families claim child benefit (with some overlap obviously).
True. But he probably wouldn't have been quite so keen on living with 11 children if he had had to support them financially himself. And at least part of the motivation for setting the fire was to regain custody of five of his children - and, more to the point, the state cash they brought with them. And possibly a bigger and better council house to boot.
@DavidL You can cut benefits by building houses and paying a living wage. Two routes Osborne has shut down, hence his failure to control welfare.
Tim, the coalition inherited a shortgae of circa 2m homes which has probably grown by about 10% since then. So 90% of the problem was inherited from Labour. As to paying more money as a living wage? The scale of the inequity of under paid people was inherited from Labour.
This has nothing to do with child killers. I was watching Channel 4 News when Krishnan Guru-Murthy explained in simple terms how a family with eleven children legitimately get £53,000 from the state. The 'child murderer' was just a reason for giving that frankly gobsmacking fact.
I doubt many watching it weren't a little surprised and Labour would be well advised to forget Osborne and explain whether this is something they support and why.
And how do they? And how many couples are there with 11 children that get £53,000 from the state? And should their existence be justification for depriving the vast majority of welfare recipients, who do not have 11 children and who are not gaming the system, of income they depend upon to keep their families fed and sheltered?
These figures essentially show why the country is bankrupt. When Tim points out for the next 100 times that the majority of those affected by housing benefit changes are "working" remember what this means.
What it means in many cases is that they are working more than 16 hours a week, that they pay little or no income tax and that their wage is then more than doubled by the tax payer. Put bluntly this "work" costs us a fortune.
The oft-repeated claim is that 93% of new housing benefit claimants are in work. But the word "new" distorts the picture considerably:
According to Factcheck, "What we can confirm from the DWP's statistics is that at least 18 per cent of Housing Benefit claimants are in employment , although this could be on either a full- or part-time basis. The DWP also concedes that, of the other claimants, some of them could well be working part-time too." http://fullfact.org/factchecks/one_in_eight_housing_benefit_claimants_unemployed-27479
By their nature many of those on housing benefit will be in part time employment. Otherwise, in many areas of the country where housing is not that expensive, they would not qualify. So the majority of these "working" recipients are in reality living on benefits and frankly would be whether they were paid the minimum wage or the living wage. Because if you have 2 children the "living wage" is nothing of the sort and state support for your employment and housing will still be required.
The two are intertwined. The welfare system / payments enabled him to get into the position to commit the crime.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic at all. In what way did welfare payments enable him to get into a position to kill six children?
By paying him for each and every child. In his twisted mind they were money generating units as well as children. The whole crime was about him getting the cash back for children who had left with his mistress, and he wanted custody and the money that they attracted.
If you think there is a moral argument to justify society paying benefit for 11 children via 2 women, feel free to express it.
I am genuinely astonished by the left's moral madness on welfare. As with the NHS, the benefits system seems to be sacrosanct; no criticism is allowed. All is perfect in the most perfect of Brownian worlds, except of course that even more money should be spent. Even to ask a question about why hundreds people may have died in appalling neglect in Mid Staffs, or why we ended up subsidising the depraved lifestyle of Philpott to such an extravagant degree, is proof only of the nastiness of the person who has the temerity to ask the question.
No wonder the last Labour government was such a disaster in respect of public services and welfare, given that is the attitude. It certainly doesn't bode well for any future Labour government that this attitude is still prevalent.
Who said no criticism was allowed? I object to a debate conducted on terms that seek to define those who are on welfare as not doing the right thing, as if they were making a lifestyle choice. Having claimed welfare myself in the past, I know that is not the case.I happen to believe that the vast majority of welfare recipients are in situaitons similar tot he one I found myself in, rather than the one Philpott manufactured for himself.
If Labour think that shrugging their shoulders and saying that we shouldn't pay too much attention to the way in which Mick Philpott abused the welfare system because it's highly unusual is going to satisfy the general public, they're as daft as the Conservatives were when they thought that they could explain away some of the hard cases caused by the "bedroom tax" by referring to a discretionary hardship fund.
I happen to believe that the vast majority of welfare recipients are in situaitons similar tot he one I found myself in, rather than the one Philpott manufactured for himself.
This has nothing to do with child killers. I was watching Channel 4 News when Krishnan Guru-Murthy explained in simple terms how a family with eleven children legitimately get £53,000 from the state. The 'child murderer' was just a reason for giving that frankly gobsmacking fact.
I doubt many watching it weren't a little surprised and Labour would be well advised to forget Osborne and explain whether this is something they support and why.
And how do they? And how many couples are there with 11 children that get £53,000 from the state? And should their existence be justification for depriving the vast majority of welfare recipients, who do not have 11 children and who are not gaming the system, of income they depend upon to keep their families fed and sheltered?
You have an imaginary link between amendments to stop people claiming for 11 children and stopping all welfare. Only you is making that weird illogical connection.
The two are intertwined. The welfare system / payments enabled him to get into the position to commit the crime.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic at all. In what way did welfare payments enable him to get into a position to kill six children?
By paying him for each and every child. In his twisted mind they were money generating units as well as children. The whole crime was about him getting the cash back for children who had left with his mistress, and he wanted custody and the money that they attracted.
If you think there is a moral argument to justify society benefit for 11 children via 2 women, feel free to express it.
The alternative is either to take the children into care or put them out onto the street.
@IsabelOakeshott: Great that @George_Osborne is sticking his neck out for once and telling us what he thinks.the submarine has emerged,with a proper splash
The Tories need to realise that all they are doing is stoking the UKIP dragon. The more they do it the further they have to drift to the right. Just like the Republicans and the tea party.
And before you know it you can fight on the center ground. Then you lose.
But still like Europe the Tories want their sugar rush. So on we go.
The tax credit numbers have now been confirmed by 4 separate sources - HMRC website, HMRC leaflet, HMRC calculator and The Times.
They have also been confirmed by Lucy and Mark Senior - and everyone on here knows the reliability and expertise of Mr Senior.
Have some courage. Try and just earn a tiny bit of respect.
You'll be waiting a long time. tim is psychologically incapable of ever admitting he is wrong on anything. Not only that, but if you make an error and admit to it, he thinks it's a form of weakness and will endlessly bring it up as a response when you make an argument he can't respond to. The guy is a troll, and we're better off just not engaging with him.
The two are intertwined. The welfare system / payments enabled him to get into the position to commit the crime.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic at all. In what way did welfare payments enable him to get into a position to kill six children?
By paying him for each and every child. In his twisted mind they were money generating units as well as children. The whole crime was about him getting the cash back for children who had left with his mistress, and he wanted custody and the money that they attracted.
If you think there is a moral argument to justify society benefit for 11 children via 2 women, feel free to express it.
The alternative is either to take the children into care or put them out onto the street.
Who said no criticism was allowed? I object to a debate conducted on terms that seek to define those who are on welfare as not doing the right thing, as if they were making a lifestyle choice. Having claimed welfare myself in the past, I know that is not the case.I happen to believe that the vast majority of welfare recipients are in situaitons similar tot he one I found myself in, rather than the one Philpott manufactured for himself.
But Southam, no-one disagrees that the vast majority of welfare recipients - many of whom are struggling on very low household incomes - are perfectly deserving. They will be as appalled (though probably not as surprised) as Roger at the fact that Philpott got mega-bucks whilst they, and most working families, have to survive on far, far less.
But you, and Balls, are trying to censor the debate, and say we shouldn't discuss what has gone wrong, or point out that Philpott WAS making a lifestyle choice.
Why are Labour so frightened of this discussion? It's madness, both politically and morally.
I happen to believe that the vast majority of welfare recipients are in situaitons similar tot he one I found myself in, rather than the one Philpott manufactured for himself.
What evidence are you basing that on?
I said it is a belief. If it is incorrect and there are in fact millions of fathers with 11 children gaming the system for personal gain then I stand to be corrected.
This has nothing to do with child killers. I was watching Channel 4 News when Krishnan Guru-Murthy explained in simple terms how a family with eleven children legitimately get £53,000 from the state. The 'child murderer' was just a reason for giving that frankly gobsmacking fact.
I doubt many watching it weren't a little surprised and Labour would be well advised to forget Osborne and explain whether this is something they support and why.
Well said Roger, - I don’t know how, but you actually seem to 'get' it.
I happen to believe that the vast majority of welfare recipients are in situaitons similar tot he one I found myself in, rather than the one Philpott manufactured for himself.
What evidence are you basing that on?
I said it is a belief. If it is incorrect and there are in fact millions of fathers with 11 children gaming the system for personal gain then I stand to be corrected.
Clearly, the Philpot case is extreme. However, I wonder how many are happy to survive on benefits endlessly and how many are striving to make sure they aren't taking hand outs any more.
Who said no criticism was allowed? I object to a debate conducted on terms that seek to define those who are on welfare as not doing the right thing, as if they were making a lifestyle choice. Having claimed welfare myself in the past, I know that is not the case.I happen to believe that the vast majority of welfare recipients are in situaitons similar tot he one I found myself in, rather than the one Philpott manufactured for himself.
But Southam, no-one disagrees that the vast majority of welfare recipients - many of whom are struggling on very low household incomes - are perfectly deserving. They will be as appalled (though probably not as surprised) as Roger at the fact that Philpott got mega-bucks whilst they, and most working families, have to survive on far, far less.
But you, and Balls, are trying to censor the debate, and say we shouldn't discuss what has gone wrong, or point out that Philpott WAS making a lifestyle choice.
Why are Labour so frightened of this discussion? It's madness, both politically and morally.
Osborne justifies his welfare reforms on the basis that he is on the side of those who want to do the right thing. If you want to ignore the implication of those words that is up to you. I am very happy to discuss what has gone wrong and have done so on here numerous times. I strongly favour cracking down very, very heavily on those who abuse the system as does Balls from what I can understand. If he does not, then I disagree with him.
"The alternative is either to take the children into care or put them out onto the street."
This is a nutshell is the problem for all lefties and Labour they see only ever these two options and play on this to make their case. There is a third option and a more sensible one...
Don't have so many feckin kids, its not rocket science. Don't expect (to coin Labours phrase) "hard working families" to keep them in a style those same hard working families cannot afford themselves.
Labour and the left wrong again and there are many more out there who milk the system making it more difficult for genuine claimants.
ToryTreasury RT "@zerohedge: Confidence in Hollande drops under 30%, lowest of any president since 1958" - Ed M doesn't mention him so much these days...
Where's all the pb posters who were telling us about the great hope of the left ?
Where is the incentive to either pay or earn a higher wage? The system seems to encourage pay to migrate towards minimum wage and for the state to fill the gaps with hand outs.
Not a sensible system. Employers should be paying, governments should recycle money less.
I happen to believe that the vast majority of welfare recipients are in situaitons similar tot he one I found myself in, rather than the one Philpott manufactured for himself.
What evidence are you basing that on?
I said it is a belief. If it is incorrect and there are in fact millions of fathers with 11 children gaming the system for personal gain then I stand to be corrected.
Clearly, the Philpot case is extreme. However, I wonder how many are happy to survive on benefits endlessly and how many are striving to make sure they aren't taking hand outs any more.
So do I. Don't you think it would be worth finding out, before we start dividing the country into scroungers and strivers based on whether they receive welfare payments or not?
"And should their existence be justification for depriving the vast majority of welfare recipients, who do not have 11 children and who are not gaming the system,"
The point is that they weren't 'gaming the system'. They were legitimately claiming what all families with 11 children are entitled to. I don't criticize welfare claimants at all I'm just incredulous at the amount awarded to support those who choose to have large families.
I posted this last night after everyone except tim had gone to bed.
Per The Times Budget tables:
Single person - Salary £10,000 - Net income £10,861
Single person with 2 children - Salary £10,000 - Net income £20,568
So having 2 children nets you an extra £9,707. Just £1,752 of that is Child Benefit. The remaining £7,955 is Child Tax Credits etc.
The figures are absolutely breathtaking. Why on earth should someone with two children get an extra £9,707? That's £187 per week. Does it cost £187 per week to feed and clothe two children?
The other aspect is that anyone with 2 children has almost no incentive at all to work unless they can earn a very high salary.
Single person with 2 children - Salary £30,000 - Net income £25,968
So earning an extra £20,000 gross salary (ie £30k instead of £10k) nets them an extra £5,400. So their tax rate from £10k to £30k is 73%.
tim's answer was that my argument was reasonable except it would reduce the birth rate and therefore require more immigration.
Surely we need clarity from politicians on this. Are we really just paying such generous benefits to keep the birth rate up?
Or do politicians really think you should get an extra £187 per week for having 2 children?
Does the public also think the right level of benefit for 2 children is £187 per week?
Thats a staggering set of statistics. See its stemmed from this whole 'Can't have children in poverty' argument but its gone way too far.
"And should their existence be justification for depriving the vast majority of welfare recipients, who do not have 11 children and who are not gaming the system,"
The point is that they weren't 'gaming the system'. They were legitimately claiming what all families with 11 children are entitled to. I don't criticize welfare claimants at all I'm just incredulous at the amount awarded to support those who choose to have large families.
Quite so Rodger your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
'Why are Labour so frightened of this discussion? It's madness, both politically and morally.'
It's reminiscent of when Labour was in power and anyone raising concerns about levels of immigration was immediately labelled a racist,which in terms of short term censorship worked well.Then they finally realized they were on the wrong side of public opinion and gave us permission to talk about it.
As Hodges mentioned in his article on welfare,Labour is sitting on the wrong side of a sturdy fence.
Labour's lack of policies is a big problem for the party here. Without a proper script to read from, spokesmen are going with their instincts, which is to stick up for anybody on welfare. Anybody at all.
SO is correct that there are relatively few families out there with 11 children and that is not really the nature of the problem.
The real problem is better illustrated with the "normal" 2 child family. How much are we prepared to pay to have them work 16 hours a week? In the context of that discussion the living wage remains an irrelevance. At best it will make a difference of £30 odd a week, it really is a distraction.
We should not lose sight of the fact that we have such generous arrangements is one of the main reasons we are sitting at 7.7% unemployment instead of the truly scary levels of unemployment in many EZ countries. We also should not lose sight of the fact that the appalling prizes for all culture in our schools means that a significant percentage of our population will never earn enough to keep themselves and their family: their work is just not worth that much in an international market place.
Changing these things is something that cannot be done overnight. In several important areas, welfare, education and housing this Coalition is making tentative steps in the right direction instead of the blank denial of the existence of the problem that Balls is still persisting with. Are Labour really going into the next election in this mode? Really?
@michaelsavage: Election dividing lines appearing. Osborne already signalled in Budget he wants to target AME spending (largely welfare) after the election.
It was one of the busiest days betting I've had in a long time - over £4,000 staked, one way or another. My return of £700 might seem a bit meagre but I went heavily on Countrywide Flame which went down...er, in flames. A decent bet on Helium rescued me. Anybody that got that had to be OK.
I did a quick recky on the bets I put up earlier today and at a level point per race the profit came out about 8 points. Don't suppose I'll be getting too many complaints.
Knackered now. This is almost like work. Back tomorrow though, when in all seriousness I will be recommending a bet on Sprinter Sacre. Even at 1/3, I think he's value. Should be more like 1/10.
you have to laugh at the rhetoric of Smithson, it always has an anti Labour bias. I wonder what he would say if Labour won a local election by taking all the votes. No doubt he would say something like the tellers couldn't count
Comments
Where did I mention penalties? In your assumption and predetermined mind set.
Question: If benefits were limited would he have had 11 or however many children or did the system enable him to do it?
Question: If benefits were limited would he have had 11 or however many children or did the system enable him to do it?
He could quite easily have got multiple women pregnant whether there was a welfare system or not. It had no effect on his sperm count.
According to Factcheck, "What we can confirm from the DWP's statistics is that at least 18 per cent of Housing Benefit claimants are in employment , although this could be on either a full- or part-time basis. The DWP also concedes that, of the other claimants, some of them could well be working part-time too." http://fullfact.org/factchecks/one_in_eight_housing_benefit_claimants_unemployed-27479
The tax credit numbers have now been confirmed by 4 separate sources - HMRC website, HMRC leaflet, HMRC calculator and The Times.
They have also been confirmed by Lucy and Mark Senior - and everyone on here knows the reliability and expertise of Mr Senior.
Have some courage. Try and just earn a tiny bit of respect.
But with a different benefit system they would not have all lived with him creating his income. The system enabled his action.
I doubt many watching it weren't a little surprised and Labour would be well advised to forget Osborne and explain whether this is something they support and why.
No wonder the last Labour government was such a disaster in respect of public services and welfare, given that is the attitude. It certainly doesn't bode well for any future Labour government that this attitude is still prevalent.
France drags on euro zone economy, Britain brighter
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/04/us-europe-economy-idUSBRE9330E620130404
No doubt Wee timmy's idea of Another coalition failure of course ........oh?
Not out of the woods but not in the mire like France.
Talking of France have they surrendered yet in the face of the threats from N.Korea?
As to paying more money as a living wage? The scale of the inequity of under paid people was inherited from Labour.
This shows a single parent (income £15,000) with ONE child (not disabled) getting tax credits of £8,017.
tim - you will see your figure of £2,690 which you originally posted - but the point is she gets a whole host of other credits as well.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/leaflets/wtc2.pdf
If you think there is a moral argument to justify society paying benefit for 11 children via 2 women, feel free to express it.
And before you know it you can fight on the center ground. Then you lose.
But still like Europe the Tories want their sugar rush. So on we go.
But you, and Balls, are trying to censor the debate, and say we shouldn't discuss what has gone wrong, or point out that Philpott WAS making a lifestyle choice.
Why are Labour so frightened of this discussion? It's madness, both politically and morally.
'You can cut benefits by building houses and paying a living wage'
Labour had 13 years to do that but didn't bother,they just increased the population by 3 million to put even more pressure on housing and wages.
A tweet I agree with.
Plus ca change
"Silly of @George_Osborne to get stuck into the Philpotts"
He was asked a direct question. The alternative would have been worse
"even sillier of @edballsmp to respond"
That's for damn sure
Interesting that Labour originally sent out a tepid quote on Osborne from Timms. Now Balls has turned it up to 11.
Iraq part 2 ,what next, the dodgy dossier.
"The alternative is either to take the children into care or put them out onto the street."
This is a nutshell is the problem for all lefties and Labour they see only ever these two options and play on this to make their case. There is a third option and a more sensible one...
Don't have so many feckin kids, its not rocket science. Don't expect (to coin Labours phrase)
"hard working families" to keep them in a style those same hard working families cannot afford themselves.
Labour and the left wrong again and there are many more out there who milk the system making it more difficult for genuine claimants.
Where's all the pb posters who were telling us about the great hope of the left ?
Where is the incentive to either pay or earn a higher wage? The system seems to encourage pay to migrate towards minimum wage and for the state to fill the gaps with hand outs.
Not a sensible system. Employers should be paying, governments should recycle money less.
"And should their existence be justification for depriving the vast majority of welfare recipients, who do not have 11 children and who are not gaming the system,"
The point is that they weren't 'gaming the system'. They were legitimately claiming what all families with 11 children are entitled to. I don't criticize welfare claimants at all I'm just incredulous at the amount awarded to support those who choose to have large families.
I agree with you.
Democrats 43% GOP 35%
That's enough for the Dems to retake the House.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1876
Quite so Rodger your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
'Why are Labour so frightened of this discussion? It's madness, both politically and morally.'
It's reminiscent of when Labour was in power and anyone raising concerns about levels of immigration was immediately labelled a racist,which in terms of short term censorship worked well.Then they finally realized they were on the wrong side of public opinion and gave us permission to talk about it.
As Hodges mentioned in his article on welfare,Labour is sitting on the wrong side of a sturdy fence.
Not good.
The real problem is better illustrated with the "normal" 2 child family. How much are we prepared to pay to have them work 16 hours a week? In the context of that discussion the living wage remains an irrelevance. At best it will make a difference of £30 odd a week, it really is a distraction.
We should not lose sight of the fact that we have such generous arrangements is one of the main reasons we are sitting at 7.7% unemployment instead of the truly scary levels of unemployment in many EZ countries. We also should not lose sight of the fact that the appalling prizes for all culture in our schools means that a significant percentage of our population will never earn enough to keep themselves and their family: their work is just not worth that much in an international market place.
Changing these things is something that cannot be done overnight. In several important areas, welfare, education and housing this Coalition is making tentative steps in the right direction instead of the blank denial of the existence of the problem that Balls is still persisting with. Are Labour really going into the next election in this mode? Really?
You mean that Labour are following the successful 1997 strategy? I honestly think you aren't very smart when you just link without reading.
More sugar for the right wing drones. UKIP get the honey.
You seen the Tories have admitted they have wasted £7m of party money and that they are going to have to waste just as much again?
Nope. Thought you hadn't
'Labour to leave decision on deficit reduction plan until election runup'
That's code for we haven't a clue.
That is another complete disaster. How can Labour criticise the government between now and then if it doesn't have its own economic strategy?
Cos you take the piss. Yet you have missed a huge strategic problem for the Tories. The only way they can solve it is if they take it in house.
The article says it was Jan 97 when Labour played their hand.
Silly Tories seem to think Labour should not repeat that exact strategy.
It was one of the busiest days betting I've had in a long time - over £4,000 staked, one way or another. My return of £700 might seem a bit meagre but I went heavily on Countrywide Flame which went down...er, in flames. A decent bet on Helium rescued me. Anybody that got that had to be OK.
I did a quick recky on the bets I put up earlier today and at a level point per race the profit came out about 8 points. Don't suppose I'll be getting too many complaints.
Knackered now. This is almost like work. Back tomorrow though, when in all seriousness I will be recommending a bet on Sprinter Sacre. Even at 1/3, I think he's value. Should be more like 1/10.
Toodle pip, punters. I'm off to bed.
No doubt he would say something like the tellers couldn't count