Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Harry Hayfield’s PB local elections special

SystemSystem Posts: 12,137
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Harry Hayfield’s PB local elections special

North East Lincolnshire was one of the unitary authorities established following the abolition of the generally not liked Humberside County Council (which still lends it’s name to the electoral region for the European Elections) and over the years has reflected the national political mood quite nicely.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    @MShapland: Labour confirmed they won't reveal their deficit reduction programme until the lead up to the General election - that will be too late folks

    @MShapland: Elections not won and lost in the few weeks of an election but two or three years before - if you're not credible on THE issue, go home now
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Glassfet is an idiot.

    In 1997 Labour didn't play their hand until 4 months before the election. Labour should do the same again.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Labour won the 1997 election I believe.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @benatipsosmori: Doing BBC News on benefits, families, Osborne and Philpot. Most people would agree with him on limits on benefits for big families
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,739
    You know, for the first time in over a year I am starting to have some hope for the tories in 2015.

    The solid budget, the slow recovery, the shock on welfare and the political cowardice of Labour in refusing to address the issues, it may not be over yet.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    IOS said:

    Glassfet is an idiot.

    In 1997 Labour didn't play their hand until 4 months before the election. Labour should do the same again.

    I agree, leave it as late as possible so you can't be a hostage to fortune.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Scott_P

    When UKIP continue to grow in support will you realise how stupid a strategy for the Tories this is. You end up stoking the UKIP dragon. You go further to the right to win those votes but it just gets bigger.

    You go even further. Lose the center ground. Lose the election. Just like the Republicans and the Tea party.

    The Tories are idiots.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    The Tories get their Sugar for running to the right. UKIP get the honey.

    Stupid Tories. Just making UKIP seem like they have a point. So more people on the right support UKIP.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @DavidL 2015 is all to play for still. A hung Parliament remains the most likely outcome in my view. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have persuaded enough of the public to win on their own yet. Neither looks likely to at present.
  • glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    @philiph

    I agree too. The later Labour leave it the better for everyone.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    glassfet said:

    @philiph

    I agree too. The later Labour leave it the better for everyone.

    1997 and 2015 are so alike, what could possibly go wrong with having no economic idea?
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Antifrank

    Depends if the Tories keep drifting to the right at the pace they are. All they do is make the UKIP vote stronger. Just how the Republicans stoked the Tea Party until it destroyed them.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Sugar rush Tories and UKIP get the honey.

    Just like the Republicans lost the center by trying to please the tea party.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Pricewise Day Two 2.30 Sea Of Thunder 3.40 Last Time D'Albain + Mister First.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @IOS You might prefer it if the Conservatives left the subject of welfare alone. There are subjects where they can win votes back from UKIP (and others) if they strike the right note. Welfare is one.

    I agree with you that the Conservatives are idiots to spend any time on the EU - all it does is help UKIP. It's probably too late for them on immigration too as well. But welfare is a subject where they retain some credibility with old right voters.

    The Conservatives have had a good week, thanks largely to a whole series of self-inflicted mistakes by Labour. Labour cannot afford to have a position on welfare that consists of them wringing their hands. They look like space aliens on the subject.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,739
    edited April 2013
    @antifrank

    You may well be right antifrank.

    It was just that the sh1t storm after the budget last year was so absurd and so much of an over-reaction that it reminded me very much of the period from 1994 to 1997 when whatever the government did it was wrong and they could not get a hearing. As it happened Ken Clarke and even Norman Lamont were doing good things but no one wanted to know anymore. The zeitgeist was with new labour and it was irresistable.

    That has been the picture for most of the last 12 months. Every little detail twisted to be a "gaff" and just plain lies (such as Mitchell) when that couldn't be done. Somehow, and I can't help feeling it is Labour's fault for leaving the field so empty, the tories are getting back into the game. Behind undoubtedly, but back.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034
    glassfet said:

    @MShapland: Labour confirmed they won't reveal their deficit reduction programme until the lead up to the General election - that will be too late folks

    @MShapland: Elections not won and lost in the few weeks of an election but two or three years before - if you're not credible on THE issue, go home now

    This strategy is fair enough I think actually, most people don't pay attention to policies till about the week before the election (Certainly not what the opposition would do) at any rate, I assume Labour's solutions will be pretty crap also so they may as well delay thm as long as possible.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    @antifrank

    I have never seen a space alien look anything like as useless as Labour this week on welfare.

    Denigrating the good name of space aliens this way is racist claptrap.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,675
    "This is a local election for local people! There's nothing for you here!"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/clips/p006vm6j/the_league_of_gentlemen_a_local_shop_for_local_people/
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @philiph

    ' The later Labour leave it the better for everyone.'

    To be fair they need time to come up with an explanation of how will they fund the reversal of every cut that has been made and re-instate benefits to millions of voters,quite a challenge.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    I mentioned this morning about hearing a dredful performance from a Labour MP on a Today program discussion re welfare and the Philpott case.

    This Labour MP seems to be Pamela Nash of Airdrie and Shotts.

    What else can I tell you about her?

    Before becoming an MP she was the parliamentary officer for the Young Fabians, an intern for John Reid and then John Reid's parliamentary assistant. In 2010, after being chosen from an AWS, she succeeded John Reid as Airdrie MP at the ripe old age of 25.

    In Westminster her notable triumphs, as reported by wiki, include:

    ' Nash was criticised in local media at the beginning of November 2010 for “failing to represent her constituents after a study showed her to be one of the worst performing parliamentarians at Westminster." '

    and

    ' Nash failed to turn up for a debate she was to lead in Parliament at 2.30 pm on Tuesday, 6th November 2012. This was to have been on Scotland's membership of the European Union after Independence. The sitting was suspended for 90 minutes and the debate was lost. '

    Given her age and the safeness of her constituency it seems that unless Scotland achieves independence this political titan will be at Westminster for the next forty years.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    philiph said:

    @antifrank

    I have never seen a space alien look anything like as useless as Labour this week on welfare.

    Denigrating the good name of space aliens this way is racist claptrap.

    Ed Balls == Space Alien would explain a lot
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    NE Lincolnshire is a clear oppurtunity for UKIP.

    Prescot West could be an oppurtunity for LibDems. In May 2012 LibDems didn't recover in that ward compared to 2011 (which is probably the low point for LD) but the total absence of an opposition within Knowsley council should give them a campaign theme to run with (please, elect me so I can keep an eye on Labour without threatening their majority).

    Nottingham Wollaton East has Labour in third place in 2003 and 2007. If 2011 was the low point for LibDems, they can try and recover from that and there is a big Tory vote to squeeze.

    Wigan, the other Nottingham ward and the other 2 Knowsley wards don't seem to offer particular interesting themes to reflect on.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    tim said:

    @antifrank

    Labour should outflank The Tories totally on benefits with a living wage commitment and a pledge to shift Osbornes £130 billion sub prime lending into building social housing.
    A massive cut in the (non pension) welfare bill over a parliament

    That wouldn't be a bad plan for Labour. But they're going to have to start articulating it very soon if they're not going to lose permission to be heard on the subject. They're already in danger of losing that permission.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    " In all the local elections since 2003 held in the UK, it has only happened in Barking and Dagenham, Newham in 2010 and Knowsley in 2012 (and interestingly always for Labour). "

    I wonder where Barking, Newham and Knowsley rank on those desirable place to live surveys?


  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    @Antifrank

    Lets see where the polls are in a few weeks.

    Here's what happens though. The Tories start all this bluster. Parts of the public think "ah ha, I knew benefits were bad." Then the Mail keeps running its stories. The same people think the Tories can't deal with it.

    They then give up on the Tories and vote UKIP.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,739
    @Tim

    Outside London the living wage is currently £7.45 an hour and the minimum wage is £6.19. If you really think that this is the answer to a £200bn a year benefit bill then you are more delusional than I gave you credit for.

    And Osborne may be giving guarantees of up to £130bn for housing but that is nothing like the same as actually spending it. It is only a contingent liability. Do you really think that Labour will go into the next election with a commitment to spend another £130bn of borrowed money on top of what will be a large deficit?

    My optimism increases by the hour.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    tim said:

    @antifrank

    the time to launch it is when the introduction of Universal Credit falls apart.

    That may be too late. Labour cannot afford more weeks like this week with the welfare-sceptic majority and they also have to explain to their diehard supporters what they have in mind. Already the Guardianistas believe Labour has let them down. I'm doubtful that Labour have 6 months to play with on this subject.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    @antifrank

    Do you know if the LibDems have said anything on welfare in the last day or two?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    philiph said:

    @antifrank

    Do you know if the LibDems have said anything on welfare in the last day or two?

    No. Which is pretty smart of them.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Interesting that every member of the public the BBC questioned on the length of Philpot's sentence said it was far, far too short.

    Could this be a catalyst case to get a public discussion about the insanity of concurrent sentences?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    antifrank said:

    philiph said:

    @antifrank

    Do you know if the LibDems have said anything on welfare in the last day or two?

    No. Which is pretty smart of them.
    It is a slight paradox that they can get away with silence - the government is giving a view, but the opposition. Labour, are required to speak to balance the government view.

    Tough, this opposition lark.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    "Labour should outflank the Tories totally on benefits with a living wage commitment"

    If Labour did that together with a commitment to cut earnings for those on double average earnings in the public sector (plus BBC plus nationalised banks) and introduce a national maximum wage of ten times living wage for all those in the public sector (plus BBC plus nationalised banks) it could make a real breakthrough on the 'fairness' front.

    He could link this with the special rate of income tax - 50% tax for private sector earnings over ten times living wage couldn't be complained about if the public sector top earners were effectively paying 100% tax at that rate.

    As only Nixon could go to China perhaps only EdM can make the guardianistas howl?

    Labour promising to hit fatcats across the public sector would put Cameron in a real mess - support it and he would look weak (and lose some affluent votes himself), oppose it and he would look like a 'protector' of the rich (and lose votes to UKIP).
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    @socrates

    The Tories aren't going to do anything. They haven't so far.

    Vote UKIP.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited April 2013
    @another_richard

    After a long running feud between national party and constituency party about the AWS, the NEC imposed it and the Airdire & Shotts CLP had to take it. The election was approaching and the NEC was in charge of the shortlist. They agreed not to stop the CLP's favoured candidate. CLP favoured candidate seemed to mean the favoured candidate by CLP officers.
    So they shortlisted Joanne Milligan (former chair of Scottish Labour Students; now she lives in Croydon. She was the central party choice), Cathy Dick (a former local councillor and the favoured candidate by CLP officers) and Pamela Nash.

    Nash surprised all of them emerging as winner after second preferences from Milligan were redistributed.
    A CLP member immediately briefed the Scottish papers saying her performance at the hustings was poor (Dick was described as passionate and Milligan as professional). The CLP Chair resigned.

    It seemed that Nash got lots of postal votes from armchair members. Apparently she was the only one working them during the selection campaign. The CLP officers apparently relied on the usual activists who were vacal and turned up to meetings and basically forgetting about everybody else. They did seem to have forgotten also about second preferences as it was 59 to 57 after the first round and it became 73 to 57 in the final count.

    Around 50 members turned up at the hustings while the total votes cast were at least 130.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,739
    tim said:

    @DavidL

    " If you really think that this is the answer to a £200bn a year benefit bill"

    Half of that is pensions.

    So that is the first half that will not be affected. Seriously, how much of the £200bn do you think you can save by paying £1.26 an hour more and will it be less or more than the additional cost to the public sector in wages as the largest employer in the country? This is not a solution, it is simply a way of spending even more (that we don't have).

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    IOS said:

    @socrates

    The Tories aren't going to do anything. They haven't so far.

    Vote UKIP.

    No, and they won't do on their own. But it's the sort of issue that UKIP and the Tory Right could make a big deal about and bounce Cameron into ending.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    The key reason why Labour look so feeble on deficit reduction is very simple.

    No one expects them to have a fully-detailed plan more than two years ahead of the expected date for the election.

    All we want to have an answer to is the simplest of all possible questions: "You say Osborne has got it all wrong. Would you spend more, or less than he proposes?"

    That's all. Shouldn't be beyond the wit of a bevy of Oxford PPE graduates to answer, should it?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited April 2013
    OT just watching S1 and so far on S2 of Once Upon A Time and after a bit of an iffy start I'm gripped about fairy tales being real - its a mix of fantasy drama, rom com and lots of sword fighting.

    There are oodles of plot twists and some superb actors involved - off the top of my head = the meanie in Breaking Bad, Robert Carlyle doing every role you can imagine from cheeky chappy in Full Monty to sadist, coward and master manipulator, and loads of others who pop up in a long list of other series from True Blood onwards.

    Well worth your time if you like this sort of plotting.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034
    tim said:

    @Socrates

    It's a life sentence.

    Since when did life mean a minimum term of 15 years though ? I always thought it meant LIFE with a minimum term of 25 years.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034
    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates

    It's a life sentence.

    Since when did life mean a minimum term of 15 years though ? I always thought the sentence was life with a minimum term of 25 years.
  • MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    Haven't been around much this week. What's all this about John Loony joining the Conservative party? Has it been discussed on here?
    http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/10333327.Monster_Raving_Loony_becomes_a_Conservative/
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    A better argument for PR at local level could scarcely be made from these results. A real opportunity for reform the LibDems let slip through their fingers in 2010...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    MrsB said:

    Haven't been around much this week. What's all this about John Loony joining the Conservative party? Has it been discussed on here?
    http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/10333327.Monster_Raving_Loony_becomes_a_Conservative/

    So, no change there then.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    antifrank said:

    philiph said:

    @antifrank

    Do you know if the LibDems have said anything on welfare in the last day or two?

    No. Which is pretty smart of them.
    Sarah Teather has had a go

    http://carons-musings.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/sarah-teather-blasts-osbornes.html
  • Pulpstar said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates

    It's a life sentence.

    Since when did life mean a minimum term of 15 years though ? I always thought it meant LIFE with a minimum term of 25 years.
    The number of life sentenced prisoners first released during 2010, and their average time served at the point of first release. The average time served by mandatory lifers has increased considerably from around nine years in the late 1970s to 16 years in 2010.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/05/the-time-spent-in-prison-by-people-sentenced-to-a-life-term-has-increased-over-the-last-30-years.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034
    Oh wow, the reality is even worse than the Philpott case:

    Presently mandatory lifers serve an average of 14 years and for other lifers the average has been in decline and now stands at nine years. (Data from 2006...)
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @tim - Just the sign, tim. Plus or minus. Which is it?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    "Outside London the living wage is currently £7.45 an hour and the minimum wage is £6.19. If you really think that this is the answer to a £200bn a year benefit bill then you are more delusional than I gave you credit for."

    Tim believes that it will simultaneously make the working poor better off and cut the welfare bill.

    That can only happen if there is a different form of financial transfer to the working poor through wages instead of via government welfare.

    Which means the goods and services which the working poor produce will have to be still purchased by everyone else but at a higher price.

    Which means that everyone else will be slightly worse off.

    And provided that people are willing to pay more for British produced goods and services than can be supplied by foreign competition.

    If they're not then it means more of the working poor end up unemployed.

    Now there are some individuals such as myself who do try to buy British produced goods and services and can afford to do so even if they cost more.

    But judging by the trade deficit I think I'm in a minority.


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates

    It's a life sentence.

    Since when did life mean a minimum term of 15 years though ? I always thought it meant LIFE with a minimum term of 25 years.
    The number of life sentenced prisoners first released during 2010, and their average time served at the point of first release. The average time served by mandatory lifers has increased considerably from around nine years in the late 1970s to 16 years in 2010.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/05/the-time-spent-in-prison-by-people-sentenced-to-a-life-term-has-increased-over-the-last-30-years.html
    Ye I fact checked it myself, sorry was just under the impression that life meant life but you could be out with good behaviour and a following wind after 25. No idea it was so low...
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    It's too simplistic to run parallels between 1997 and 2015.

    It won't be as easy for Ed Miliband as it was for Tony Blair. Back then the Labour party was totally united and wanted power, plus the Tories were ragged and war-weary and resigned to opposition.

    But nobody should underestimate how prepared Blair and his team were for office. In the two year run-up to the 1997 election Blair barely put a foot wrong. He is a first class politician and had cute answers to all the issues. He nullified the (growing and improving) economy as an issue by pledging to match Tory spending plans and then developed well-thought-out responses on crime, education and all the other big topics. It was built on concise soundbites, but underneath that Blair cleverly convinced the public that he had the answers.

    Clever opposition responses are, of course, different to well-thought-out policies. And even Blair himself regrets that Labour didn't achieve more during their first term. But in terms of media-handling, rebuttal, quick and disciplined on-message responses, Blair's top team were kings of the game.

    Contrast that with how Ed Miliband and his team have handled the current welfare issue (admittedly a difficult issue for them) and you can begin to see how the pre 2015 election campaigning is going to be a very tough time for Team Miliband. Miliband will need concise answers, good rebuttal, well-thought-through arguments. He'll need to convince the public.

    Blair was luckier in that the 1997 Tories were effectively a busted flush. But this Tory team won't be. Far from it; they'll be free from the 'shackles' of the coalition and will be refreshed (as will the Lib Dems). They'll have a message to the public. It won't be a particularly positive or mosaic one, but it will be 'stick with us, and we'll get through this' rally cry. They'll also be inured to the flak by then, whilst Miliband and his team will be new to it, whilst being forensically questioned on how they plan to create a brighter future (which won't be easy at all).

    All the while, as Miliband and his team are contemplating how best to formulate policy on tricky issues like cuts, immigration and welfare, they have the likes of Owen Jones representing the arguments of the left. For Miliband, this will only make matters worse, for he knows that the Jones school of argument, however populist and comfy it may sound to the left, is economically impossible.

    Under Blair the likes of Owen Jones would've been captured, hooded and stored in a dark place along with the likes of Ken Livingstone. Alistair Campbell would've made sure of that. Nothing would've got in the way of the disciplined message.

    As the election nears Miliband will need convincing answers to a lot of tricky questions. To my mind the Tories have had a very poor eighteen months during an extremely (possibly unprecendently) difficult time. But their one hope will be the unveiling of Miliband's masterplan for the nation, and of how it gets torn to shreds by the rabid hound of media spotlight.

    Remember 'good and bad businesses' anyone?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @another_richard why should I buy secondrate goods just because they're British?

    One solution to the wages problem you identify is to provide government help to meeting private sector wages (perhaps for small and medium size businesses) towards the living wage.
  • MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    I doubt Labour are putting policies together at the moment. They are probably too busy working out what to do about the antics of the more militant unions who are calling for a general strike.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates

    It's a life sentence.

    Since when did life mean a minimum term of 15 years though ? I always thought it meant LIFE with a minimum term of 25 years.
    The number of life sentenced prisoners first released during 2010, and their average time served at the point of first release. The average time served by mandatory lifers has increased considerably from around nine years in the late 1970s to 16 years in 2010.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/05/the-time-spent-in-prison-by-people-sentenced-to-a-life-term-has-increased-over-the-last-30-years.html
    Ye I fact checked it myself, sorry was just under the impression that life meant life but you could be out with good behaviour and a following wind after 25. No idea it was so low...
    We could always go for the American model and 999 year sentences.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    The irony is that at present welfare is a forced transfer of wealth from the middle classes to the working poor via the government.

    Take away that forced transfer and bring in a living wage and you end the compulsion on the middle classes.

    They can't avoid paying taxes but they can avoid buying the goods and services produced by the working poor.

    They can't chose to pay third world tax rates instead of UK tax rates but they can chose to buy third world produced goods and services instead of UK produced goods and services.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    The politics of the various Milibands , Ralph ( originally Adolphe ) , Ed , David , are far more revolting than Paolo DiCanio's. David Miliband should resign from his disgusting family rather than Sunderland.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates

    It's a life sentence.

    Since when did life mean a minimum term of 15 years though ? I always thought it meant LIFE with a minimum term of 25 years.
    The number of life sentenced prisoners first released during 2010, and their average time served at the point of first release. The average time served by mandatory lifers has increased considerably from around nine years in the late 1970s to 16 years in 2010.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/05/the-time-spent-in-prison-by-people-sentenced-to-a-life-term-has-increased-over-the-last-30-years.html
    Ye I fact checked it myself, sorry was just under the impression that life meant life but you could be out with good behaviour and a following wind after 25. No idea it was so low...
    We could always go for the American model and 999 year sentences.
    I think 25 years is a good medium, if it means older criminals die in prison so be it - they'll have enjoyed better years of their life outside than a murderer who gets sent in at 21 say.

  • MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    And my final comment for tonight is that I find myself surprisingly in agreement with Ann Widdecombe over the Philpotts. She seems to be the only one with anything sensible to say.

    As for the Philpott sentences, as a) I am not a lawyer b) I have not read the sentencing guidelines for manslaughter c) I have not been through all the evidence in the case, I am quite happy to leave it up to the judge to decide what's appropriate.
  • EastwingerEastwinger Posts: 354
    When a judge passes down a life sentence he/she can state whatever minimum term they deem appropriate. There is no such thing as a 25 yr minimum for a life sentence.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    On the Philpott case, while I agree with Osborne's comments on welfare and his disregard for his own childrens' welfare some on the left are bound to bring up the recent tragic case of a man who killed his parents for their inheritance, as Owen Jones has done
    http://www.lbc.co.uk/parents-murder-monster-son-jailed-for-life-69648
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    antifrank said:


    One solution to the wages problem you identify is to provide government help to meeting private sector wages (perhaps for small and medium size businesses) towards the living wage.

    Now's here's an idea.

    Why don't we just stop taxing businesses at something like 30% to 50% of their rent bill in business rates, and 14% of most of their wage bill in National Insurance, and taxing their employees a further 12% National Insurance over £149 a week, so we can give some of the money back to low-paid employees we've just taxed (and to Mick Philpott)?

    Just a thought.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    PPP 2016 General Election

    •Hillary Clinton (D) 46% {46%} [44%]
    •Chris Christie (R) 42% {41%} [42%]
    •Hillary Clinton (D) 49%
    •Rand Paul (R) 43%
    •Hillary Clinton (D) 50% {50%} [53%]
    •Paul Ryan (R) 43% {44%} [39%]
    •Hillary Clinton (D) 49% {49%} [51%]
    •Marco Rubio (R) 42% {41%} [37%]


    •Chris Christie (R) 49% {44%}
    •Joe Biden (D) 40% {44%}
    •Joe Biden (D) 47%
    •Rand Paul (R) 43%
    •Joe Biden (D) 48% {49%}
    •Paul Ryan (R) 45% {45%}
    •Joe Biden (D) 46% {48%}
    •Marco Rubio (R) 44% {43%}
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates

    It's a life sentence.

    Since when did life mean a minimum term of 15 years though ? I always thought it meant LIFE with a minimum term of 25 years.
    The number of life sentenced prisoners first released during 2010, and their average time served at the point of first release. The average time served by mandatory lifers has increased considerably from around nine years in the late 1970s to 16 years in 2010.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/05/the-time-spent-in-prison-by-people-sentenced-to-a-life-term-has-increased-over-the-last-30-years.html
    Ye I fact checked it myself, sorry was just under the impression that life meant life but you could be out with good behaviour and a following wind after 25. No idea it was so low...
    We could always go for the American model and 999 year sentences.
    I think 25 years is a good medium, if it means older criminals die in prison so be it - they'll have enjoyed better years of their life outside than a murderer who gets sent in at 21 say.

    I'm always think it is wise to not decide sentencing policy in the immediate aftermath of such an emotive case such as this.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    PPP 2016 Democratic nomination

    Given the choices of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick, Brian Schweitzer, Mark Warner, and Elizabeth Warren, who would you most like to see as the Democratic candidate for President in 2016?
    •Hillary Clinton 64% (58%) {57%} [61%] (57%)
    •Joe Biden 18% (19%) {16%} [12%] (14%)
    •Elizabeth Warren 5% (8%) {4%} [4%] (6%)
    •Andrew Cuomo 3% (3%) {4%} [5%] (5%)
    •Mark Warner 2% (1%) {2%} [1%] (2%)
    •Kirsten Gillibrand 1% (1%) {1%}
    •Martin O’Malley 1% (1%) {3%} [2%] (1%)
    •Deval Patrick 1% (0%) {2%} [1%]
    •Brian Schweitzer 1% (0%) {1%} [1%] (1%)
    •Someone else/Undecided 6% (9%) {10%} [12%] (12%)

    Given the choices of Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick, Brian Schweitzer, Mark Warner, and Elizabeth Warren, who would you most like to see as the Democratic candidate for President in 2016?
    •Joe Biden 49% (57%) (32%)
    •Elizabeth Warren 11% (13%) (8%)
    •Andrew Cuomo 10% (5%) (18% )
    •Kirsten Gillibrand 7% (4%)
    •Mark Warner 3% (3%) (2%)
    •Deval Patrick 2% (2%)
    •Brian Schweitzer 2% (0%) (1%)
    •Martin O’Malley 1% (1%) (2%)
    •Someone else/Undecided 15% (14%) (32%)


    If neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden ran for President in 2016, who would you most like to see as the Democratic nominee?
    •Andrew Cuomo 22% (25%) {19%} [21%] (27%)
    •Elizabeth Warren 18% (21%) {16%} [16%] (9%)
    •Martin O’Malley 8% (5%) {7%} [5%] (4%)
    •Kirsten Gillibrand 5% (3%) {5%}
    •Mark Warner 5% (4%) {4%} [3%] (4%)
    •Deval Patrick 4% (3%) {6%} [8%]
    •Brian Schweitzer 1% (2%) {2%} [2%] (2%)
    •Someone else/Undecided 36% (36%) {40%} [45%] (46%)
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Antifrank

    If the Tories overplay their hand on welfare, they reinforce the nasty party image. Increasing brand toxicity will more than wipe out any advantage they gain.

    I would say the Tories have way overplayed their hand. Osborne wading into the sewer today just the latest.

    Remember, the Tories need to win over Gordon Brown supporters or left leaning ex Lib Dems to prevent a Labour majority. The more they appeal to Mail reading PBTories, the further their electoral prospects recede.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    "why should I buy secondrate goods just because they're British?"

    You shouldn't and for that matter I don't.

    But I don't mind spending a little more * for British made of an equal quality or when a purchase is purely discretionary its origin often tips the balance in my decision on whether to buy it or not **.

    * The extra I would pay for British made could be termed as being for the psychic satisfaction that gives me.

    ** "Do I need it? No. Do I want it? Maybe. Where's it from? China - put it back, Britain - go on then I'll have it"

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates

    It's a life sentence.

    Since when did life mean a minimum term of 15 years though ? I always thought it meant LIFE with a minimum term of 25 years.
    The number of life sentenced prisoners first released during 2010, and their average time served at the point of first release. The average time served by mandatory lifers has increased considerably from around nine years in the late 1970s to 16 years in 2010.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/05/the-time-spent-in-prison-by-people-sentenced-to-a-life-term-has-increased-over-the-last-30-years.html
    Ye I fact checked it myself, sorry was just under the impression that life meant life but you could be out with good behaviour and a following wind after 25. No idea it was so low...
    We could always go for the American model and 999 year sentences.
    I think 25 years is a good medium, if it means older criminals die in prison so be it - they'll have enjoyed better years of their life outside than a murderer who gets sent in at 21 say.

    I'm always think it is wise to not decide sentencing policy in the immediate aftermath of such an emotive case such as this.
    You could use that point about the welfare system discussion we are having here also. But tragic cases (Lawrence, Baby P, Hillsborough) do often bring about reports and some of the recommendation in them well sometimes I think to myself - seriously why the fiddly duck weren't they doing that already ?!)
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    tim said:

    Sarah Teather responds to George Osborne's comments on the welfare system and Mick Philpott
    April 4, 2013 6:00 PM
    Responding to George's Osborne's comments regarding the welfare system and Mick Philpott, who was sentenced to life imprisonment today after being found guilty of the manslaughter of six of his children, Sarah Teather MP said:
    "I am shocked and appalled that George Osborne has stooped so low as to make a crude political point out of the tragic deaths of six young children. It's one thing for a tabloid newspaper to make unsophisticated, clumsy political arguments, quite another for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to join in.
    "It is deeply irresponsible for such a senior politician to seek to capitalise on public anger about this case, and in doing so demonise anybody who receives any kind of welfare support. Mr Philpott should be held fully accountable for his awful actions and it is reprehensible to seek to explain it away by blaming the welfare system which Osborne has been so happy to wage war on.
    "On Tuesday, when answering a question about living on £53 a week, Osborne said that it's not sensible to reduce the debate to an argument about one individual's set of circumstances. It makes you wonder what has changed in 48 hours."



    I thought Cameron had ceased this sick stuff after Shannon Matthews/Edlington/Brooke Kinsella.

    Seems they can't resist a bit of sport with child victims

    Did you actually listen to what Osborne said? There was nothing even remotely controversial about it. In fact, I hope the media play it over and over, because 99% of people will nod along in agreement.

    It wasn't inflammatory like the Mail. It was just good, old fashioned commonsense.

    And Teather is busting for a transfer to Labour anyway.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates

    It's a life sentence.

    Since when did life mean a minimum term of 15 years though ? I always thought it meant LIFE with a minimum term of 25 years.
    The number of life sentenced prisoners first released during 2010, and their average time served at the point of first release. The average time served by mandatory lifers has increased considerably from around nine years in the late 1970s to 16 years in 2010.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/05/the-time-spent-in-prison-by-people-sentenced-to-a-life-term-has-increased-over-the-last-30-years.html
    Ye I fact checked it myself, sorry was just under the impression that life meant life but you could be out with good behaviour and a following wind after 25. No idea it was so low...
    We could always go for the American model and 999 year sentences.
    I think 25 years is a good medium, if it means older criminals die in prison so be it - they'll have enjoyed better years of their life outside than a murderer who gets sent in at 21 say.

    I'm always think it is wise to not decide sentencing policy in the immediate aftermath of such an emotive case such as this.
    You could use that point about the welfare system discussion we are having here also. But tragic cases (Lawrence, Baby P, Hillsborough) do often bring about reports and some of the recommendation in them well sometimes I think to myself - seriously why the fiddly duck weren't they doing that already ?!)
    Indeed Baby P is a prime example, Ed Balls royally messed that up, and tax payer had to fork out for his mistakes.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    carl said:



    ...Remember, the Tories need to win over Gordon Brown supporters or left leaning ex Lib Dems to prevent a Labour majority. The more they appeal to Mail reading PBTories, the further their electoral prospects recede.

    I agree with that. Remember how the Lynton Crosby 2005 campaign saw the Tories drop from the 40s in some polls in early 2004 to 33% @ GE2005.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    "Osborne wading into the sewer today just the latest."

    The increase in Osborne's appearances is interesting.

    Almost as if its a 'double or quits' atempt to improve his image and restore his political credibility.

    Personally I'd say quits.

    Patrick McLoughlin might have been a better choice for the Conservatives on this issue - working class background and a Derbyshire MP.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates

    It's a life sentence.

    Since when did life mean a minimum term of 15 years though ? I always thought it meant LIFE with a minimum term of 25 years.
    And he took six lives.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @ChrisPincher

    David Miliband has barely left country before Eds M&B put another nail in Blairite coffin. They remain addicted to unreformed welfare spend
  • I assume this has been mentioned?

    Prison inmates are to be deprived of legal aid to fund complaints against the penal system, the Government has announced.

    The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, said that he was “appalled” at the amount of public money was being used for “unnecessary legal cases” that could be resolved through internal channels.

    The proposals, which were announced late last night, would save £4 million by reducing the number of cases brought by prisoners, he said.

    http://www.lccsa.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=47839
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    Carl - Not quite, the Tories need to win back UKIP voters and win over a few Cleggite LDs, all the left-wing LDs will be voting for Miliband anyway and the Tories can eke out a majority if they win not one voter who backed Brown in 2010 or who has defected to Labour from the LDs since then. Labour has a floor as a result of 36% in 2015, the Tories need to get to about 40/41% to win!
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    @MikeSmithson

    All it does it legitmise the potential UKIP voters view of the world. When nothing changes the potential UKIP voter thinks the Tories cannot sort it out so they might as well vote UKIP.

    In the mean time the Tories have drifted so far right chasing the same voter the sent that way that they cannot win the center ground.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Mirror front page not good for Osborne - parking in a disabled bay. https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/319911845773316096/photo/1
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Phil Collins in the Times tomorrow
    Labour might easily lose, in 2015, an election it really ought to win and the reason will be that it didn’t understand what voters told it in 2010. When people were asked for an image to encapsulate the Labour Party, they told focus groups they imagined a man lying lazily on a sofa. That is a disaster for a party called Labour. There’s meant to be a clue in the name.

    This week the tanker of politics started to turn. The benefit cap — which limits welfare payments so that no family can receive more than average after-tax household earnings — was introduced. Housing benefit cuts began to bite. Then the grotesque Mick Philpott became the stooge embodiment of all that is said to be wrong with a culture in which the idle take the rise out of the working population. We may look back on this as the week in which the coalition began to speak again to the British public while the forgetful Labour Party slunk back on to the sofa.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,854
    @Tim.

    I always thought Sarah Teather would be the next leader of the Lib Dems until she soiled herself by being a cheer leader for Gove. With that powerful denunciation of Osborne she has gone some way to rehabilitating herself. Only a Lib Dem could say what she's just said and have had that sort of impact. Being female makes it even more powerful.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    There are plenty of people who voted for Brown in 2010 who might vote Conservative in 2015.

    Every single one of them will agree with Osborne that the welfare system needs reform. They know, or at least strongly suspect, that Labour are not on their side. The challenge is to convince them that the Tories are.

    Labour have made that challenge a tad easier today,
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034

    Mirror front page not good for Osborne - parking in a disabled bay. https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/319911845773316096/photo/1

    Oops hes done a John Terry. Do I get on Osborne next out ?
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    And just for the record, Osborne didn't pass comment on the poor children, he merely questioned whether the state should be diverting taxpayer money to the likes of Phillpott to fund his lifestyle.

    I agree he didn't mean to kill his own children, and he is probably utterly devastated at what he has done.

    But the question still remains: should hard-working Britons see their taxes paid to a man who has (what was it, 17?) kids by a couple of women, then have the welfare paid to him and controlled by him, whilst he gets to sh*g another woman, in his kids' house, who isn't the kids' mother, and then, when he's feeling especially horny, get his friend round his kids' house as well, to help him sh*g his wife?

    That's the basic question, and the one Osborne was alluding too.

    Personally, I'm all up for the guy doing loads of shag*ing and threesomes and having loads of kids and having two women on the go at once and never doing a days work, but please try to do it off your own back, not off the backs of hard working others.

    See, lefties like Owen Jones get all antsy, saying things like 'why should we deny the kids the welfare money?' (we shouldn't) but won't address the fact that the kids don't get the money, the controlling Phillpotts's of this world do instead.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900

    The irony is that at present welfare is a forced transfer of wealth from the middle classes to the working poor via the government.

    The middle class are the main winners from our welfare state. The poor are kept in their place in crap jobs and rented housing while the business owners employ them on low wages (which are topped up with tax credits) and pay off their mortgages with subsidies by the name of housing benefit.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul: "The unforgiving distance between view from Labour seminar room and the moral intuitions of the British people" @PCollinsTimes on welfare
  • carl said:



    ...Remember, the Tories need to win over Gordon Brown supporters or left leaning ex Lib Dems to prevent a Labour majority. The more they appeal to Mail reading PBTories, the further their electoral prospects recede.

    I agree with that. Remember how the Lynton Crosby 2005 campaign saw the Tories drop from the 40s in some polls in early 2004 to 33% @ GE2005.

    And how exactly do they do that? Hand out sweeties to part of the electorate and say the other lot will pay for it?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509
    Mrs B - yes, JohnLoony announced his decision on April 1 but seems to have been serious.

    Meanwqhile, Japan climbs the magic money tree:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/04/japan-quantitative-easing-70bn
  • Good to see Sarah Teather snuggling up to Labour on the wrong side of the argument leaving the tories a clear run. No wonder the lefties on here seem so rattled tonight. Is it beginning to all slip away?
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900

    Mirror front page not good for Osborne - parking in a disabled bay. https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/319911845773316096/photo/1

    Man of the people. Most of us have done it at some point. My doctors has 3 disabled bays that only seem to be used by people who nip in quickly to drop off a prescription.
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    Er! Can we get this manifesto thing sorted out?

    The Conservatives and the LibDems went into a coalition government on a fixed term of 5 years passed into law at Westminster with a 60 odd percentage vote to dissolve.

    Previously, an opposition had to be prepared to become the government at any time and have a rolling manifesto ready in case a General Election was called.

    By having a fixed term, it has allowed the HM Opposition to do it's job and hold the HM Government of the Conservative / LibDem Coalition government to account - which due to the seemingly incompetent Coalition leadership it is able to put the ball into a series of open goals.

    Nowadays it's therefore only worth while printing a manifesto if the government of the day is coming to the end of it's fixed term or if the government is probably going to collapse under the weight of it's incompetence.

    Ok, I can now see that the Labour Party must now print it's manifesto quite quickly.

    PS: Who came up with the Fixed Term anyhow?
  • Tories need to pick up the votes of approximately 0% of Mirror readers to win a majority. It has all the political credibility of Viz and this latest bit of barrel scraping will, no doubt, be as authentic as the train ticket bull.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited April 2013
    Millsy said:

    Mirror front page not good for Osborne - parking in a disabled bay. https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/319911845773316096/photo/1

    Man of the people. Most of us have done it at some point. My doctors has 3 disabled bays that only seem to be used by people who nip in quickly to drop off a prescription.
    This makes me BLOODY furious. People who do this are assholes.

    I have strong personal interest. My severely disabled elder brother is a Tatton resident and the problems off transportation are massive. To have Osbo doing this is despicable and if you think it is acceptable then you are despicable too

  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    'Treasury source says car was parked while Osborne was inside buying lunch, didn't notice how it was parked when he got in & went off./Car was a police vehicle, source says Osborne doesn't condone the way it was parked' rosshawkins
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,362

    "why should I buy secondrate goods just because they're British?"

    You shouldn't and for that matter I don't.

    But I don't mind spending a little more * for British made of an equal quality or when a purchase is purely discretionary its origin often tips the balance in my decision on whether to buy it or not **.

    * The extra I would pay for British made could be termed as being for the psychic satisfaction that gives me.

    ** "Do I need it? No. Do I want it? Maybe. Where's it from? China - put it back, Britain - go on then I'll have it"

    Wouldn't waste your time mate, the London elite have no connection to their own. They won't buy their own goods but will take any old crap from a failed bank or an underperforming investment fund and tell us we're lucky to have it. Self lining pockets included.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited April 2013


    This makes me BLOODY furious. People who do this are assholes.

    Err, Mike, this is the Mirror.

    That photo doesn't show Osborne parking in a disabled bay. It shows someone getting into a car in a disabled bay (it doesn't particularly look like Osborne, but maybe it is). There's a driver sitting at the wheel - you can see the collar, albeit not much else.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,675
    tim said:

    @millsy

    John Terry is the type of lowlife who does it, so is Osborne

    Is he the type of lowlife who would set fire to a house killing 6 children?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034
    Carola said:

    'Treasury source says car was parked while Osborne was inside buying lunch, didn't notice how it was parked when he got in & went off./Car was a police vehicle, source says Osborne doesn't condone the way it was parked' rosshawkins

    What was the driver thinking ? Its like his SPAD on the train. If you're driving a Gov't minister about who has to make tough choices affecting people's lives you don't park in the disabled bay ! Maybe the driver is a labour voter...

This discussion has been closed.