@Socrates: "Let's hope the new Pope follows through with this:"
Indeed: as a Catholic ashamed of how the hierarchy has dealt with these appalling crimes, I heartily endorse this. Let's hope he gets rid of the deadwood who have been responsible for the - at best - lackadaisical way the Church has responded.
Erm, yes it is, Scott. Wasn't it Sean telling us yesterday that Labour are going to get punched about all over the place unless they take an EVEN MORE draconian line on welfare in response to this? 57% of respondents don't seem to be receptive to that argument, and given that under your beloved electoral system it potentially only takes 33% to win...
"1st Philpott poll - YouGov/C5News: 51% say “just the actions of an evil man", 43% say “raises serious questions about benefits system”."
Hmmm. That's a bit inconvenient for the PB Tory narrative.
Only for those who are stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between the actions of an evil man, and the exposure those actions have given to a lifestyle which the benefits system has been enabling, encouraging and subsidising.
I'm not certain if there really are people who are so stupid, or whether they are simply pretending to be stupid because for some reason (which frankly I don't understand), they don't want to discuss the subject.
Let's discuss:
Should scrounging actual or potentail childkillers be subsidised by the state? I say no.
Should those on benefits be allowed to game the system, bring it into disrepute and so give those hostile to it the excuse to introduce dramatic changes that will negatively affect all users of working age, including the majority who do so in good faith? Absolutely not. They should be identified have the book thrown at them.
Should the government introduce incentives for the relatively few feckless scroungers out there to produce more children in order to increase their handouts and get bigger houses at the expense of people who do the right thing but happen - whether temporarily or permanently - to have more bedrooms than they need? No, that would be totally wrong, so it's a mystery why it has been done.
Does the welfare system encourage the breeding of huge numbers of children and the ultimate deaths of some of them? No, I don't think so; but there are people who will always game the system. The issue is whether their existence justifies the removal or the restriction of state help to the overwhelming majority (the working poor, those looking for work, the disabled, pensioners). I don't think it does - instead I think the state should focus on weeding out those who do abuse the system, in spirit or in law, as it stands.
Yet Cammie thinks they are necessary in Eurasia despite being NorthKorea being out of range and only short range missiles are useable. Warmonger sadly sums him up, but after Saddam we know the Tories lie along with Labour on all things that involve dick measuring.
How do the Germans and Italians do without them and sleep safely in their beds at night?
For all you happy sterling bears, the pound just hit 1:53 and a a half against the greenback....
And for the downgrade brigade, 10-year gilts are a miserly 1.62...
...which shows how wrong Osborne was to make preservation of triple A ratings central to his strategy...remember those doom-laden predictions of rocketing interest rates if ratings were downgraded....complete b*ll*cks.
Yet Cammie thinks they are necessary in Eurasia despite being NorthKorea being out of range and only short range missiles are useable. Warmonger sadly sums him up, but after Saddam we know the Tories lie along with Labour on all things that involve dick measuring.
How do the Germans and Italians do without them and sleep safely in their beds at night?
Goodness knows how they're planning to finance the 2015 general election.
Afternoon all
Well, I've been a member of the LDs and before that the Liberals for over thirty years and they've always been after me for more money. We will regrettably never be able to compete with the Conservatives or Labour for pointless posters and billboards but within the constituencies (75-100 I would guess) where any sort of campaign will be fought, all parties will be on the legal spending limits and beyond that it's down to volunteers.
How much for instance will the Tories waste in East Ham - HQ offices, glossy newspaper and canvassing to unseat the hugely-marginal Stephen Timms ? That's what they did in 2010.
I would argue that it's not the size but what you do with it that counts - the financial resource any party can bring to an election, of course.
By the way, an awesome performance by Sprinter Sacre even though I don't think the course suited him at all. I wonder if they'll be tempted by the KIng George on Boxing Day.
"This is the latest PCS poster lamenting the fact full time “pilgrim” civil servants are being made to return to work:
“All reps including the 2 existing full time TUS officers will spend the majority of their time in line jobs with immediate effect… Banned from using DCLG facilities (emails, desks, the building etc) to issue information to members on national issues inlcuding key material on pensions and the Civil Service Management Code.”
EDIT - how do I post an image? I'm clearly missing some trick here.
It is horrible but absolutely right that the UK lost its AAA rating. We have 1.4tn in debt = 90%+GDP and a stubbornly unmoving deficit. We need to pare back the state in a way that is an order of magnitude deeper than anything electable. Our balance of payments stinks. We are in deep deep doodoo. The whole economy needs a profound rebalance.
It took decades, with a dramatic acceleration over the last 15 years, to grow the public sector and impair our private sector as much as is the case and it will take even longer to recover. But with a politically dominant left and an electoral system that makes it easier for Labour to get MPs, there is close to zero chance we will be governed by anyone capable of sustaining a reboot. We will spend and inflate our way to penury.
@Southam - All sensible points, although I'd slightly quibble with the second paragraph, because it's not clear that Philpott and his companions were 'gaming the system'; as far as one can tell, that is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
Either way, grown-ups should be able to discuss how the system could be improved, no?
Thanks to all who have explained by ignorance of what was meant by DLC. Sometimes I just feel old.
It is a truly different world for children today in terms of what they are exposed to and seem comfortable with. I really worry that the coming generation are going to be desensitised to violence in a way we have never seen before.
On the other hand I find the stuff my son makes on Minecraft quite jaw dropping. Amazingly complicated circuits, pistons and the like to make ever more complex machines. His understanding of 3D space as shown on a screen is something I will never come close to mastering. These are skills that may well have some application one day.
@Southam - All sensible points, although I'd slightly quibble with the second paragraph, because it's not clear that Philpott and his companions were 'gaming the system'; as far as one can tell, that is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
Either way, grown-ups should be able to discuss how the system could be improved, no?
I have never said otherwise. What I object to is the use of a childkiller as some kind of symbol of a system that has gone wrong. Philpott was known about many years before he killed his kids. In fact, the Sun even reported on him being outraged at being denied a bigger house in 2007:
He'd have more chance of getting one now, of course, thanks to recent measures.
But the point about him is that he is not new. He could have been cited any time over the last six years. But it was only when he killed his children that certain politicians decided that his lifestyle was symptomatic of a system gone wrong.
Sprinter Sacre is so good that, like Frankel, he can win at just about any distance. He's bred for 3m, so the King George is a natural enough target for him.
If he wins that, it's a question of which they want to go for - The QM again or GC.
@Southam. Absolute nonsense. Apart from anything else, the Mail has been going on about taxpayer-financed lifestyles like this for yonks. The Guardianstas always denied that they exist, and blamed the media, or the Tories, or both, for having the temerity to say: 'Hang on, what is going on here?'.
Well, such lifestyles do exist, and the full horror of one example has now been fully exposed in court, so that no-one can possibly deny that there is a problem. Even Roger, Guardianista par excellence was shocked at the revelation of what we have been subsidising. Are you seriously suggesting we should just shrug our shoulders and say, 'Oh well, it's only wrecked lives and financial wastefulness on a massive scale, mustn't mention it in case anyone feels uncomfortable?'
Thanks to all who have explained by ignorance of what was meant by DLC. Sometimes I just feel old.
It is a truly different world for children today in terms of what they are exposed to and seem comfortable with. I really worry that the coming generation are going to be desensitised to violence in a way we have never seen before.
On the other hand I find the stuff my son makes on Minecraft quite jaw dropping. Amazingly complicated circuits, pistons and the like to make ever more complex machines. His understanding of 3D space as shown on a screen is something I will never come close to mastering. These are skills that may well have some application one day.
On the contrary I think violent or bullying behaviour by children is much less common (and much less acceptable) now than was the case when I was at school in the 1970s. And although there is universal exposure to violence and more on the internet I see no evidence that this has made children more violent or less sensitive.
Sprinter Sacre is so good that, like Frankel, he can win at just about any distance. He's bred for 3m, so the King George is a natural enough target for him.
If he wins that, it's a question of which they want to go for - The QM again or GC.
I think the Gold Cup if he can manage the distance, puts him higher up in the 'All Time' rankings at least in my book if he can do it from 2 - 3 1/4 miles at the top level.
He appeared on daytime TV and reality TV with Widdecombe for god's sake. Of course he isn't new. The pathetic spin that this is all about the crime highlighting the lifestyle is paper thin rubbish. The nasty party have joined in with the Daily Mail in cowardly using the grotesque killing of children to conflate their anti-welfare dog whistling precisely because it's such a unique abhorrent crime that the public rightly find repugnant.
@Southam. Absolute nonsense. Apart from anything else, the Mail has been going on about taxpayer-financed lifestyles like this for yonks. The Guardianstas always denied that they exist, and blamed the media, or the Tories, or both, for having the temerity to say: 'Hang on, what is going on here?'.
Well, such lifestyles do exist, and the full horror of one example has now been fully exposed in court, so that no-one can possibly deny that there is a problem. Even Roger, Guardianista par excelllence was shocked at the revelation of what we have been subsidising . Are you seriously suggesting we should just shrug our shoulders and say, 'Oh well, it's only wrecked lives and financial wastefulness, mustn't mention it in case anyone feels uncomfortable?'
No, I am not saying that. As you say, the Mail, the Sun and other newspapers have been going on about this for years. Philpott';s lifestyle was exposed as far back as 2007 (when he was not given a house he would be more likely to get now thanks to this government). It is only now that certain politicians have chosen to speak out.
But, as I say, I am all for a discussion of whether Philpott's circumstances reveal a wider truth about benefits claimants, or whether this childkiller is either a one off or part of a small minority whose actions should not be used as an excuse to restrict state support for the working poor, those looking for work and the disabled.
Unfortunately it's a useless question, since any sensible person would agree with both answers. Indeed one very sensible person already has:
"Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had.
It is horrible but absolutely right that the UK lost its AAA rating. We have 1.4tn in debt = 90%+GDP and a stubbornly unmoving deficit.
...
You may have to eat your children.
Coming top of the bottom set is an achievement, Patrick.
What is important in an age of grade deflation is direction of movement and competitive advantage, the ability to run faster than the lion's alternate prey.
And George is winning by these measures. The 2013 budget and the coincidental OBR forecast showed a snapshot of stationary deficit and debt targets. We all know that these metrics are mobile and that what appears static may just be a point of crossover.
But I agree there will be no miracle cures. George is Chancellor not Pope. Even though prayer is still the best option for both.
On eating babies and pets, I will endure my diet of pork until at least Autumn.
He appeared on daytime TV and reality TV with Widdecombe for god's sake. Of course he isn't new. The pathetic spin that this is all about the crime highlighting the lifestyle is paper thin rubbish. The nasty party have joined in with the Daily Mail in cowardly using the grotesque killing of children to conflate their anti-welfare dog whistling precisely because it's such an abhorrent crime that the public rightly find repugnant.
Well indeed. It' was only when Philpott killed his kids that Osborne became interested in him. It is naked and distasteful opportunism. As are accusations levelled at those of us who point this out that we are seeking to shut down or censor discussion of the welfare system.
"Unfortunately it's a useless question, since any sensible person would agree with both answers."
You seem to think a sensible person would hold utterly incompatible viewpoints simultaneously. The Philpott case "raises some serious questions about the benefits system" but "we shouldn't draw wider lessons from it"?
@Plato Who wants an investigation into why, 5 years after the crash, the FSA even managed to get itself dissolved without taking any action against these incompetents? What a completely useless organisation that was. Clearly designed by an idiot. Regulations over 1m high if you were daft enough to print them out and they miss the biggest banking crash of all time. Just pathetic.
These people cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds. It is really shocking so little was done about it. In the US I suspect they would be in jail by now and their economy is the stronger for it. I heard Nigel Lawson going on about this on the radio today. He is plainly getting on a bit but he was dead right about this.
"Unfortunately it's a useless question, since any sensible person would agree with both answers."
You seem to think a sensible person would hold utterly incompatible viewpoints simultaneously. The Philpott case "raises some serious questions about the benefits system" but "we shouldn't draw wider lessons from it"?
A valiant effort, Richard.
The CRIME is entirely the responsibility of Philpott and his accomplices. No one else. We shouldn't draw wider lessons from it.
The SUBSIDISING OF HIS DEPRAVED LIFESTYLE by the taxpayer raises some questions about the benefits system.
Surely this isn't hard to understand. Unfortunately the question mixes up the two.
RT @tnewtondunn: 1st Philpott poll - YouGov/C5News: 51% say “just the actions of an evil man", 43% say “raises serious questions about benefits system”.
43% is ASTONISHINGLY high. That's the point. You'd normally expect 80-90% of people to blame Philpott himself, and no one else. But anger against the injustice of the welfare state is so high, almost half of the populace is willing to blame 'the benefits culture' for an uniquely horrible slaughter.
In a country where the NHS and the welfare state have hitherto been a secular religion, worthy only of veneration, these are epochal stats. Anyone who doesn't see this is a cretin.
And you can add 25 points to that 43 to get an estimate of how many Brits think benefits are out of control, whatever happened in Derby.
What evidence is there that the welfare system has ever been held in high esteeem in this country?
As are accusations levelled at those of us who point this out that we are seeking to shut down or censor discussion of the welfare system.
We'll see exactly how long that lasts if I or any others decide to keep posting the facts about the total breakdown and makeup of spending given over to housing benefit pensions etc. Or the many interesting details covering the taxpayer funded 'lifestyle' of certain MPs and their expenses since they seem so keen on using one person to embody this entire debate.
They didn't seem too pleased about the £53 a week getting raised either, did they?
Labour appear to see the welfare state as a 1945 motor car - becoming increasingly more expensive and difficult to maintain but appear to think that it cannot be improved in any shape or form other than to pour in more petrol.
Kudos for Southam for entering the debate however.
As are accusations levelled at those of us who point this out that we are seeking to shut down or censor discussion of the welfare system.
We'll see exactly how long that lasts if I or any others decide to keep posting the facts about the total breakdown and makeup of spending given over to housing benefit pensions etc. Or the many interesting details covering the taxpayer funded 'lifestyle' of certain MPs and their expenses since they seem so keen on using one person to embody this entire debate.
They didn't seem too pleased about the £53 a week getting raised either, did they?
And given that Osborne has said that the changes to the benefits sytem are about helping those who do the right thing, will we ever get an explanation as to what the disabled, the working poor and those looking for work have done wrong to justify their state support being restricted in the ways that it has been?
I suspect if Blair had lead Labour in 2010 we'd have still finished up with hung parliament, but Labour probably would have been the largest party.
Goodness knows what the outcome would have been, because I don't think the Lib-Dems would have entered into a coalition with Mr Iraq and anyway Blair wouldn't have wanted to "power share" after having absolute power for 13 years.
We'd probably have had some sort of minority Labour government, a market collapse and London would have resembled Athens by 2011.
If Andrea is elected MP for Morley and Outwood, her priorities are threefold. Firstly, she seeks to increase visibility and trust among the public by holding regular surgeries around the constituency and frequently meeting with local businesses, community groups and charities. Secondly, Andrea would make it her mission to become a voice for local SME's in order to encourage inward investment. And thirdly, she would commit herself to driving up standards in schools by meeting with headteachers and offering them her full support.
Getting perilously close to actually having some political views there.
Labour appear to see the welfare state as a 1945 motor car - becoming increasingly more expensive and difficult to maintain but appear to think that it cannot be improved in any shape or form other than to pour in more petrol.
Kudos for Southam for entering the debate however.
I think that generally that is fair comment. Labour does need to come up with some answers.
If Andrea is elected MP for Morley and Outwood, her priorities are threefold. Firstly, she seeks to increase visibility and trust among the public by holding regular surgeries around the constituency and frequently meeting with local businesses, community groups and charities. Secondly, Andrea would make it her mission to become a voice for local SME's in order to encourage inward investment. And thirdly, she would commit herself to driving up standards in schools by meeting with headteachers and offering them her full support.
Getting perilously close to actually having some political views there.
Does that mean she will offer them her full support if they do not want their schools to convert to academy status?
As are accusations levelled at those of us who point this out that we are seeking to shut down or censor discussion of the welfare system.
We'll see exactly how long that lasts if I or any others decide to keep posting the facts about the total breakdown and makeup of spending given over to housing benefit pensions etc. Or the many interesting details covering the taxpayer funded 'lifestyle' of certain MPs and their expenses since they seem so keen on using one person to embody this entire debate.
They didn't seem too pleased about the £53 a week getting raised either, did they?
Will we ever get an explanation as to what the disabled, the working poor and those looking for work have done wrong to justify their state support being restricted in the ways that it has been?
Southam, take a swim in the sulphurous but warm Árbæjarlaug thermal pools. It will do wonders for your dyspepsia.
Why do you want to attach blame to those impacted by austerity measures?
The government's primary aim is to eliminate the deficit. This involves optimising revenue and reducing cost. Osborne is not looking for culprits to penalise.
The working poor, disabled and those looking for work should contribute to cost reduction even though the government has ensured that proportionately they suffer less than the more able and fortunate.
You are making benefit provision out to be a moral awards scheme.
RT @tnewtondunn: 1st Philpott poll - YouGov/C5News: 51% say “just the actions of an evil man", 43% say “raises serious questions about benefits system”.
43% is ASTONISHINGLY high. That's the point. You'd normally expect 80-90% of people to blame Philpott himself, and no one else. But anger against the injustice of the welfare state is so high, almost half of the populace is willing to blame 'the benefits culture' for an uniquely horrible slaughter.
In a country where the NHS and the welfare state have hitherto been a secular religion, worthy only of veneration, these are epochal stats. Anyone who doesn't see this is a cretin.
And you can add 25 points to that 43 to get an estimate of how many Brits think benefits are out of control, whatever happened in Derby.
It's also possible to think that it both "raises questions about the welfare state" and "is the action of an evil man" Because thats my position.
I don't think theres any doubt that Philpott is at the very extreme end of the "underclass" and is unique in his wickedness, but equally to deny there's not a group of people living outside the boundaries of normal society and seeing children as a commodity is silly.
@Plato Who wants an investigation into why, 5 years after the crash, the FSA even managed to get itself dissolved without taking any action against these incompetents? What a completely useless organisation that was. Clearly designed by an idiot. Regulations over 1m high if you were daft enough to print them out and they miss the biggest banking crash of all time. Just pathetic.
These people cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds. It is really shocking so little was done about it. In the US I suspect they would be in jail by now and their economy is the stronger for it. I heard Nigel Lawson going on about this on the radio today. He is plainly getting on a bit but he was dead right about this.
I think the standards commission Plato refers to would be more likely headed up by Nigella Lawson rather than Nigel Sorry I'll stop it there.
"I think the Gold Cup if he can manage the distance, ..."
They won't want to overfaze the horse. The King George would be a good test. If he wins doing handsprings, they might be tempted by the GC. It would be a big ask but the division isn't terrifically strong, whereas there will be Simonsig in the QMC next year.
If you ever get the chance to see him in the flesh, take it. He may well be the best jumps horse I've ever seen. (I narrowly missed Arkle.)
43% is ASTONISHINGLY high. That's the point. You'd normally expect 80-90% of people to blame Philpott himself, and no one else. But anger against the injustice of the welfare state is so high, almost half of the populace is willing to blame 'the benefits culture' for an uniquely horrible slaughter. .
Look at the subsamples. In the North, 49% raise some serious questions, in Scotland it is 46%. Only London and the South (at 39% and 40% respectively), keep it down to 43%.
Even that doesn't work in distinguishing a Logue from a Pole.
Ah, but do you remember when that giant of right wing comedy Romney failed to get elected (being a pitiful loser) and some, (who I sadly cannot say) seemed to take issue with you on the popular vote and whether Romney had actually won that despite his electoral college hammering?
RT @Edwina_Currie: "Without wishing to be complacent or hubristic, management has done a superb job." Stevenson, HBOS chairman to FSA, Nov 2007. Oh my Lord..!
Unfortunately it's a useless question, since any sensible person would agree with both answers. Indeed one very sensible person already has:
"Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had.
It's the linking of the two that I find distasteful. This case is being used to turn public opinion against the easiest targets on the range and deflect attention from the hardest. Let's not pretend otherwise, eh.
As are accusations levelled at those of us who point this out that we are seeking to shut down or censor discussion of the welfare system.
We'll see exactly how long that lasts if I or any others decide to keep posting the facts about the total breakdown and makeup of spending given over to housing benefit pensions etc. Or the many interesting details covering the taxpayer funded 'lifestyle' of certain MPs and their expenses since they seem so keen on using one person to embody this entire debate.
They didn't seem too pleased about the £53 a week getting raised either, did they?
Will we ever get an explanation as to what the disabled, the working poor and those looking for work have done wrong to justify their state support being restricted in the ways that it has been?
Southam, take a swim in the sulphurous but warm Árbæjarlaug thermal pools. It will do wonders for your dyspepsia.
Why do you want to attach blame to those impacted by austerity measures?
The government's primary aim is to eliminate the deficit. This involves optimising revenue and reducing cost. Osborne is not looking for culprits to penalise.
The working poor, disabled and those looking for work should contribute to cost reduction even though the government has ensured that proportionately they suffer less than the more able and fortunate.
You are making benefit provision out to be a moral awards scheme.
What Osborne has said is that these reforms are about looking after the interests of those who do the right thing. The reforms restrict support available to the working poor, those looking for work and many disabled people. So, the question is: what are they doing wrong that those who are doing the right thing are doing right? Maybe he'll provide an answer at some stage.
As for Iceland. I love it. The snow is on the mountains, the whale is delicious, the beer is sweet, the people are great. Yesterday I met the finance minister at her ministry and had a chat with her for half an hour. That kind of thing happens here. It's fantastic.
RT @Edwina_Currie: "Without wishing to be complacent or hubristic, management has done a superb job." Stevenson, HBOS chairman to FSA, Nov 2007. Oh my Lord..!
Grrrrrrrr....
And throw away the keys as well. So the next lot of management realise there are consequences for their acts.
The word is spin and happily it will not work. Putting a 'NEAR PERFECT' ;^) incompetent toxic liability like Osbrowne front and centre just helps ensure that it won't.
43% is ASTONISHINGLY high. That's the point. You'd normally expect 80-90% of people to blame Philpott himself, and no one else. But anger against the injustice of the welfare state is so high, almost half of the populace is willing to blame 'the benefits culture' for an uniquely horrible slaughter. .
Look at the subsamples. In the North, 49% raise some serious questions, in Scotland it is 46%. Only London and the South (at 39% and 40% respectively), keep it down to 43%.
I wonder why?
Putting everything else to one side, if those regional breakdowns are in any way accurate we can pretty safely say that this is not going to be a gamechanger for the Tories.
It's long, but exposes the craziness of those slamming "tax breaks for millionaires". Apologies if you've seen it before. I hadn't and think it's rather wonderful.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. Once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics.
Labour appear to see the welfare state as a 1945 motor car - becoming increasingly more expensive and difficult to maintain but appear to think that it cannot be improved in any shape or form other than to pour in more petrol.
Kudos for Southam for entering the debate however.
I think that generally that is fair comment. Labour does need to come up with some answers.
Indeed it does. It will be interesting to see if it continues with doomed attempts to reduce the cost of welfare by attacking the relatively small proportion that is paid to people of working age - in which case it will fail, just as the Tories will fail. Or whether it will tackle the real issues, which are twofold - one is the increase in the cost of old age pensions due to the huge and unpredicted increase in life expectancy over the past 25 years or so, and the other is the exponential rise in the cost of housing benefit due to the collapse in housebuilding, particularly of social housing. It will not be possible to make major reductions in the cost of welfare unless these issues are tackled, presumably be raising the pension age and a greatly increased programme of house building. When the pension age was set at 65 in the 1940s male life expectancy was about 65. Now it is around 80 - and the pension age is still 65 and only due to rise very gradually over the next decade. And the proportion of people of working age in the population is declining....
43% is ASTONISHINGLY high. That's the point. You'd normally expect 80-90% of people to blame Philpott himself, and no one else. But anger against the injustice of the welfare state is so high, almost half of the populace is willing to blame 'the benefits culture' for an uniquely horrible slaughter. .
Look at the subsamples. In the North, 49% raise some serious questions, in Scotland it is 46%. Only London and the South (at 39% and 40% respectively), keep it down to 43%.
I wonder why?
Putting everything else to one side, if those regional breakdowns are in any way accurate we can pretty safely say that this is not going to be a gamechanger for the Tories.
The higher %s in the Midlands and the North are precisely why CON needs to go after this. The next GE will be won and lost in battleground counties like West Yorkshire.
43% is ASTONISHINGLY high. That's the point. You'd normally expect 80-90% of people to blame Philpott himself, and no one else. But anger against the injustice of the welfare state is so high, almost half of the populace is willing to blame 'the benefits culture' for an uniquely horrible slaughter. .
Look at the subsamples. In the North, 49% raise some serious questions, in Scotland it is 46%. Only London and the South (at 39% and 40% respectively), keep it down to 43%.
I wonder why?
Putting everything else to one side, if those regional breakdowns are in any way accurate we can pretty safely say that this is not going to be a gamechanger for the Tories.
The higher %s in the Midlands and the North are precisely why CON needs to go after this. The next GE will be won and lost in battleground counties like West Yorkshire.
Possibly, I suppose. But I would be surprised if the North or Scotland prove to be very happy hunting grounds for the Tories in 2015.
Look at the subsamples. In the North, 49% raise some serious questions, in Scotland it is 46%. Only London and the South (at 39% and 40% respectively), keep it down to 43%.
I wonder why?
The answer is likely to be that those in the North and in Scotland have more familiarity with how the system works. Bear in mind that anyone struggling to get by on more typical levels of benefits will have even more reason to be horrified at the excesses revealed by the case than those of us who are more fortunate.
Unfortunately it's a useless question, since any sensible person would agree with both answers. Indeed one very sensible person already has:
"Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had.
It's the linking of the two that I find distasteful. This case is being used to turn public opinion against the easiest targets on the range and deflect attention from the hardest. Let's not pretend otherwise, eh.
As are accusations levelled at those of us who point this out that we are seeking to shut down or censor discussion of the welfare system.
We'll see exactly how long that lasts if I or any others decide to keep posting the facts about the total breakdown and makeup of spending given over to housing benefit pensions etc. Or the many interesting details covering the taxpayer funded 'lifestyle' of certain MPs and their expenses since they seem so keen on using one person to embody this entire debate.
They didn't seem too pleased about the £53 a week getting raised either, did they?
Will we ever get an explanation as to what the disabled, the working poor and those looking for work have done wrong to justify their state support being restricted in the ways that it has been?
Southam, take a swim in the sulphurous but warm Árbæjarlaug thermal pools. It will do wonders for your dyspepsia.
Why do you want to attach blame to those impacted by austerity measures?
The government's primary aim is to eliminate the deficit. This involves optimising revenue and reducing cost. Osborne is not looking for culprits to penalise.
The working poor, disabled and those looking for work should contribute to cost reduction even though the government has ensured that proportionately they suffer less than the more able and fortunate.
You are making benefit provision out to be a moral awards scheme.
What Osborne has said is that these reforms are about looking after the interests of those who do the right thing. The reforms restrict support available to the working poor, those looking for work and many disabled people. So, the question is: what are they doing wrong that those who are doing the right thing are doing right? Maybe he'll provide an answer at some stage.
As for Iceland. I love it. The snow is on the mountains, the whale is delicious, the beer is sweet, the people are great. Yesterday I met the finance minister at her ministry and had a chat with her for half an hour. That kind of thing happens here. It's fantastic.
Try to get to Videy Island where many species of birds nest. It may be a little early but I went in May and it is a Hitchcock Birds experience. I believe there are boat trips and guided tours.
Being divebombed all afternoon by mother gulls makes the Icelandic delicacy of smoked Puffin all the more enjoyable at your dining table in the evening.
The answer to your question on benefits is that the vast majority of claimants are doing nothing wrong. A small proportion however are gaming the system by choosing a life of benefits dependency over a life of earned income from employment. Where possible the system should be modified to optimise work incentives and remove systemic bias towards benefit dependency.
Look at the subsamples. In the North, 49% raise some serious questions, in Scotland it is 46%. Only London and the South (at 39% and 40% respectively), keep it down to 43%.
I wonder why?
The answer is likely to be that those in the North and in Scotland have more familiarity with how the system works. Bear in mind that anyone struggling to get by on more typical levels of benefits will have even more reason to be horrified at the excesses revealed by the case than those of us who are more fortunate.
But they are not going to vote Tory, which was my point from a purely electoral perspective.
Ths case did not reveal those excesses. They were revealed in 2007 in a national newspaper and subsequently - twice - on national TV.
o one feels that sorry for the poor, any more. Life is tuff for everyone. Suck it up, etc.
This is a potential election winner, for the Tories. And if they had a plausible WWC Tebbity leader in place, my guess is they'd win a majority. With Cam and Oz it is unlikely - but not impossible.
The obv irony is that PM Miliband will then have to enforce the biggest welfare cuts in UK history, anyway.
Absolutely bang on Sean, as usual. Is there anyone in the Tories who can do this? A Tebbitty figure, as you say. I can't think of anyone right now, other than Hague, who probably doesn't want it.
What odds on a Tory / UKIP coalition at the next election, where the North votes UKIP?
"The answer is likely to be that those in the North and in Scotland have more familiarity with how the system works."
Hmmm. More probably the answer is that the margin of error for the small Scottish subsample would be in the region of 10% (and even that's assuming that the figures were properly weighted, which they almost certainly weren't).
"... one is the increase in the cost of old age pensions due to the huge and unpredicted increase in life expectancy over the past 25 years or so ..."
Unpredicted? Unpredicted by who? For goodness sake, it even formed the basis for the plot of an episode of "Yes Prime Minister" - the Smokescreen, in which Sir Humphrey points out that for the financial good of the country, "It is vital that people continue to die at about the current rate".
The increase in life expectancy was not only entirely predictable, it was predicted. Our politicians just refused to do anything about the inevitable consequences.
43% is ASTONISHINGLY high. That's the point. You'd normally expect 80-90% of people to blame Philpott himself, and no one else. But anger against the injustice of the welfare state is so high, almost half of the populace is willing to blame 'the benefits culture' for an uniquely horrible slaughter. .
Look at the subsamples. In the North, 49% raise some serious questions, in Scotland it is 46%. Only London and the South (at 39% and 40% respectively), keep it down to 43%.
I wonder why?
Putting everything else to one side, if those regional breakdowns are in any way accurate we can pretty safely say that this is not going to be a gamechanger for the Tories.
You're not even beginning to understand. Philip Collins (Blair's speechwriter) is bang on in the Times. These polls speak to enormous attitudinal changes. No one feels that sorry for the poor, any more. Life is tuff for everyone. Suck it up, etc.
This is a potential election winner, for the Tories. And if they had a plausible WWC Tebbity leader in place, my guess is they'd win a majority. With Cam and Oz it is unlikely - but not impossible.
The obv irony is that PM Miliband will then have to enforce the biggest welfare cuts in UK history, anyway.
I did not write what you copied. But I don't think there has been a huge attitudional change. I think people have been suspiscious of aspects of the welfare system for a pretty long time. I have not seen any evidence that they ever treasured it in the way they treasure the NHS. I suspect that just as the riots of 2011were not a gamechanger, the Philpott case will not be either. But we shall see.
o one feels that sorry for the poor, any more. Life is tuff for everyone. Suck it up, etc.
This is a potential election winner, for the Tories. And if they had a plausible WWC Tebbity leader in place, my guess is they'd win a majority. With Cam and Oz it is unlikely - but not impossible.
The obv irony is that PM Miliband will then have to enforce the biggest welfare cuts in UK history, anyway.
Absolutely bang on Sean, as usual. Is there anyone in the Tories who can do this? A Tebbitty figure, as you say. I can't think of anyone right now, other than Hague, who probably doesn't want it.
What odds on a Tory / UKIP coalition at the next election, where the North votes UKIP?
Sprinter Sacre is so good that, like Frankel, he can win at just about any distance. He's bred for 3m, so the King George is a natural enough target for him.
If he wins that, it's a question of which they want to go for - The QM again or GC.
Oddly enough, I didn't think he looked as comfortable or travelled as well today as he did at Cheltenham until the final half mile. The further they went the better he went.
Perhaps the Betfair at Haydock on the way to the King George and then...if it came up really soft at Prestbury Park, I suspect they'd play it safe but otherwise until they can get him off the bridle, we won't know how deep his stamina reserves are.
On a line through First Lieutenant and Cue Card, you'd have to say he'd have won the Ryanair easily and on a line through Silvaninco Conti (more tenuous), you could argue he'd have gone close in the Gold Cup.
An interesting piece of travel writing that discusses North Koreans who work in Vladivostok -
"A pretty waitress who called herself Alyona served me galbitang (beef soup), boricha (barley tea), sogogi bokkeum (fried beef with vegetables), and a bowl of kimchi (spicy fermented cabbage), along with several little plates of delicacies. I was sufficiently hungry and curious to have ordered half the menu, and when it was all laid out there in front of me didn’t feel particularly confident that I could finish it off. But every dish was delicious – far better that I could have expected from the price tag. I later heard that the staff are threatened with evacuation if they fail to produce results. So perhaps that explains the high quality.
Alyona (not her real name of course) told me she was from the North Korean capital, studying Russian, and had been in the country for six months. I tried to tell her that this place was much better than the Hyundai restaurant. She gave me a blank look. ‘You know, that big South Korean hotel in the city centre?’ No reaction. I got out my digital camera and showed her a picture of it that I’d taken that morning. She took a look, gave a little laugh, said she didn’t know the place, and walked away. And after that a different waitress started serving me. Oh dear I thought, I’ve touched on a forbidden subject – perhaps any mention of the evil capitalist South is banned here? But then looking around, that didn’t seem to be the case. The TV on the wall was made by Samsung. The DVD player was an LG. The lager in the fridge had Hite labels."
Unfortunately it's a useless question, since any sensible person would agree with both answers. Indeed one very sensible person already has:
"Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had.
It's the linking of the two that I find distasteful. This case is being used to turn public opinion against the easiest targets on the range and deflect attention from the hardest. Let's not pretend otherwise, eh.
As are accusations levelled at those of us who point this out that we are seeking to shut down or censor discussion of the welfare system.
We'll see exactly how long that lasts if I or any others decide to keep posting the facts about the total breakdown and makeup of spending given over to housing benefit pensions etc. Or the many interesting details covering the taxpayer funded 'lifestyle' of certain MPs and their expenses since they seem so keen on using one person to embody this entire debate.
They didn't seem too pleased about the £53 a week getting raised either, did they?
Will we ever get an explanation as to what the disabled, the working poor and those looking for work have done wrong to justify their state support being restricted in the ways that it has been?
Southam, take a swim in the sulphurous but warm Árbæjarlaug thermal pools. It will do wonders for your dyspepsia.
Why do you want to attach blame to those impacted by austerity measures?
The government's primary aim is to eliminate the deficit. This involves optimising revenue and reducing cost. Osborne is not looking for culprits to penalise.
The working poor, disabled and those looking for work should contribute to cost reduction even though the government has ensured that proportionately they suffer less than the more able and fortunate.
You are making benefit provision out to be a moral awards scheme.
What Osborne has said is that these reforms are about looking after the interests of those who do the right thing. The reforms restrict support available to the working poor, those looking for work and many disabled people. So, the question is: what are they doing wrong that those who are doing the right thing are doing right? Maybe he'll provide an answer at some stage.
As for Iceland. I love it. The snow is on the mountains, the whale is delicious, the beer is sweet, the people are great. Yesterday I met the finance minister at her ministry and had a chat with her for half an hour. That kind of thing happens here. It's fantastic.
Try to get to Videy Island where many species of birds nest. It may be a little early but I went in May and it is a Hitchcock Birds experience. I believe there are boat trips and guided tours.
Being divebombed all afternoon by mother gulls makes the Icelandic delicacy of smoked Puffin all the more enjoyable at your dining table in the evening.
The answer to your question on benefits is that the vast majority of claimants are doing nothing wrong. A small proportion however are gaming the system by choosing a life of benefits dependency over a life of earned income from employment. Where possible the system should be modified to optimise work incentives and remove systemic bias towards benefit dependency.
The why has Osborne positioned the changes as being about helping those who do the right thing?
After his EU speech of a lifetime and possibly winning the next election with his cast iron EU referendum pledge is Cammie going to possibly win again by fighting on welfare?
Goodness gracious. Winning twice at once. That should be quite a landslide. Possibly.
The May local elections are going to be very entertaining indeed.
Hmmm. More probably the answer is that the margin of error for the small Scottish subsample would be in the region of 10% (and even that's assuming that the figures were properly weighted, which they almost certainly weren't).
It doesn't look like margin of error, since it seems to be systematically higher in the two regions (North and Scotland) with the highest of claimants and Labour voters, middling in Midlands/Wales, and lowest in London and the South.
Still, as I said, the question is confused anyway.
Typical stuck up labour politician part of a millionaires shadow front bench elite. just running roughshod over the little people and all those hard working families"
"Despicable" as the lefties would say and the Daily Mirror would say.
"It doesn't look like margin of error, since it seems to be systematically higher in the two regions (North and Scotland) with the highest of claimants and Labour voters, middling in Midlands/Wales, and lowest in London and the South."
To misquote Paul McGann in the terrible Doctor Who "TV movie" -
"PB Tories. Always seeing patterns in things that aren't there."
Comments
Indeed: as a Catholic ashamed of how the hierarchy has dealt with these appalling crimes, I heartily endorse this. Let's hope he gets rid of the deadwood who have been responsible for the - at best - lackadaisical way the Church has responded.
> Goodness knows how they're planning to finance the 2015 general election.
When a continuity Yellow/Blue coalition swings back to a more likely prospect they should be able to pick up some big donors.
Erm, yes it is, Scott. Wasn't it Sean telling us yesterday that Labour are going to get punched about all over the place unless they take an EVEN MORE draconian line on welfare in response to this? 57% of respondents don't seem to be receptive to that argument, and given that under your beloved electoral system it potentially only takes 33% to win...
It's yet another master strategy. What could possibly go wrong?
Should scrounging actual or potentail childkillers be subsidised by the state? I say no.
Should those on benefits be allowed to game the system, bring it into disrepute and so give those hostile to it the excuse to introduce dramatic changes that will negatively affect all users of working age, including the majority who do so in good faith? Absolutely not. They should be identified have the book thrown at them.
Should the government introduce incentives for the relatively few feckless scroungers out there to produce more children in order to increase their handouts and get bigger houses at the expense of people who do the right thing but happen - whether temporarily or permanently - to have more bedrooms than they need? No, that would be totally wrong, so it's a mystery why it has been done.
Does the welfare system encourage the breeding of huge numbers of children and the ultimate deaths of some of them? No, I don't think so; but there are people who will always game the system. The issue is whether their existence justifies the removal or the restriction of state help to the overwhelming majority (the working poor, those looking for work, the disabled, pensioners). I don't think it does - instead I think the state should focus on weeding out those who do abuse the system, in spirit or in law, as it stands.
Yet Cammie thinks they are necessary in Eurasia despite being NorthKorea being out of range and only short range missiles are useable. Warmonger sadly sums him up, but after Saddam we know the Tories lie along with Labour on all things that involve dick measuring.
How do the Germans and Italians do without them and sleep safely in their beds at night?
- Osborne's parking problem
- Balls' speeeding problem
- Umunna's trash problem
- Balir's ego problem
and now the president of Uruguay has described Kirchner as a hag.
Well, I've been a member of the LDs and before that the Liberals for over thirty years and they've always been after me for more money. We will regrettably never be able to compete with the Conservatives or Labour for pointless posters and billboards but within the constituencies (75-100 I would guess) where any sort of campaign will be fought, all parties will be on the legal spending limits and beyond that it's down to volunteers.
How much for instance will the Tories waste in East Ham - HQ offices, glossy newspaper and canvassing to unseat the hugely-marginal Stephen Timms ? That's what they did in 2010.
I would argue that it's not the size but what you do with it that counts - the financial resource any party can bring to an election, of course.
By the way, an awesome performance by Sprinter Sacre even though I don't think the course suited him at all. I wonder if they'll be tempted by the KIng George on Boxing Day.
"This is the latest PCS poster lamenting the fact full time “pilgrim” civil servants are being made to return to work:
“All reps including the 2 existing full time TUS officers will spend the majority of their time in line jobs with immediate effect… Banned from using DCLG facilities (emails, desks, the building etc) to issue information to members on national issues inlcuding key material on pensions and the Civil Service Management Code.”
EDIT - how do I post an image? I'm clearly missing some trick here.
It is horrible but absolutely right that the UK lost its AAA rating. We have 1.4tn in debt = 90%+GDP and a stubbornly unmoving deficit. We need to pare back the state in a way that is an order of magnitude deeper than anything electable. Our balance of payments stinks. We are in deep deep doodoo. The whole economy needs a profound rebalance.
It took decades, with a dramatic acceleration over the last 15 years, to grow the public sector and impair our private sector as much as is the case and it will take even longer to recover. But with a politically dominant left and an electoral system that makes it easier for Labour to get MPs, there is close to zero chance we will be governed by anyone capable of sustaining a reboot. We will spend and inflate our way to penury.
You may have to eat your children.
Either way, grown-ups should be able to discuss how the system could be improved, no?
http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2013/04/Andrea_Jenkyns_selected_for_Morley_and_Outwood.aspx
It is a truly different world for children today in terms of what they are exposed to and seem comfortable with. I really worry that the coming generation are going to be desensitised to violence in a way we have never seen before.
On the other hand I find the stuff my son makes on Minecraft quite jaw dropping. Amazingly complicated circuits, pistons and the like to make ever more complex machines. His understanding of 3D space as shown on a screen is something I will never come close to mastering. These are skills that may well have some application one day.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.108815448
So you would instead encourage them and every other European country to develop their own nuclear weapons, Alan?
Do you think that would make the world safer?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/41233/Dad-of-14-sick-of-Britain.html
He'd have more chance of getting one now, of course, thanks to recent measures.
But the point about him is that he is not new. He could have been cited any time over the last six years. But it was only when he killed his children that certain politicians decided that his lifestyle was symptomatic of a system gone wrong.
Ding dong ! - Balls out hopefully.
No answer, point proved.
I think there's violence and then there's violence. Don't forget that cartoons have lots of violence and that's not really an issue.
When facial graphics improve significantly it may become more of an issue (and there's the possibility of, er, a new frisky genre emerging).
Their Metallica lookalike made me smile https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHGQt8QCIAEcpAC.jpg:large
But their first one is just so Tomorrow People
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHGP3UwCAAAzsq3.jpg:large
Hi Stodge
Sprinter Sacre is so good that, like Frankel, he can win at just about any distance. He's bred for 3m, so the King George is a natural enough target for him.
If he wins that, it's a question of which they want to go for - The QM again or GC.
Well, such lifestyles do exist, and the full horror of one example has now been fully exposed in court, so that no-one can possibly deny that there is a problem. Even Roger, Guardianista par excellence was shocked at the revelation of what we have been subsidising. Are you seriously suggesting we should just shrug our shoulders and say, 'Oh well, it's only wrecked lives and financial wastefulness on a massive scale, mustn't mention it in case anyone feels uncomfortable?'
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/totgco4y3r/YG-Archive-Channel-5-results-050413-Phillpot.pdf
Best head off to those Derry vineyards, Alan.
I would rather go hungry myself.
But, as I say, I am all for a discussion of whether Philpott's circumstances reveal a wider truth about benefits claimants, or whether this childkiller is either a one off or part of a small minority whose actions should not be used as an excuse to restrict state support for the working poor, those looking for work and the disabled.
City of Culture James, I'll be heading off later.
"Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had.
She's standing again in Lincolnshire county elections
2009: Con 463 BNP 374 ByPass 283 Ind 279 Lab 205 LD 130 Ind (sitting Cllr elected as Lab) 82
2005: Lab 38.8 Con 36.4 UKIP 24.8%
I guess she may face a strong challenge by UKIP next month
Not that it will particularly matter in terms of Morley & Outwood as we are talking about another place
https://twitter.com/mattwhatsit/status/320186611692363776/photo/1
What is important in an age of grade deflation is direction of movement and competitive advantage, the ability to run faster than the lion's alternate prey.
And George is winning by these measures. The 2013 budget and the coincidental OBR forecast showed a snapshot of stationary deficit and debt targets. We all know that these metrics are mobile and that what appears static may just be a point of crossover.
But I agree there will be no miracle cures. George is Chancellor not Pope. Even though prayer is still the best option for both.
On eating babies and pets, I will endure my diet of pork until at least Autumn.
You seem to think a sensible person would hold utterly incompatible viewpoints simultaneously. The Philpott case "raises some serious questions about the benefits system" but "we shouldn't draw wider lessons from it"?
A valiant effort, Richard.
Who wants an investigation into why, 5 years after the crash, the FSA even managed to get itself dissolved without taking any action against these incompetents? What a completely useless organisation that was. Clearly designed by an idiot. Regulations over 1m high if you were daft enough to print them out and they miss the biggest banking crash of all time. Just pathetic.
These people cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds. It is really shocking so little was done about it. In the US I suspect they would be in jail by now and their economy is the stronger for it. I heard Nigel Lawson going on about this on the radio today. He is plainly getting on a bit but he was dead right about this.
The SUBSIDISING OF HIS DEPRAVED LIFESTYLE by the taxpayer raises some questions about the benefits system.
Surely this isn't hard to understand. Unfortunately the question mixes up the two.
They didn't seem too pleased about the £53 a week getting raised either, did they?
The only way to tell them apart is to read their posts.
Kudos for Southam for entering the debate however.
Goodness knows what the outcome would have been, because I don't think the Lib-Dems would have entered into a coalition with Mr Iraq and anyway Blair wouldn't have wanted to "power share" after having absolute power for 13 years.
We'd probably have had some sort of minority Labour government, a market collapse and London would have resembled Athens by 2011.
Getting perilously close to actually having some political views there.
Even that doesn't work in distinguishing a Logue from a Pole.
Why do you want to attach blame to those impacted by austerity measures?
The government's primary aim is to eliminate the deficit. This involves optimising revenue and reducing cost. Osborne is not looking for culprits to penalise.
The working poor, disabled and those looking for work should contribute to cost reduction even though the government has ensured that proportionately they suffer less than the more able and fortunate.
You are making benefit provision out to be a moral awards scheme.
I don't think theres any doubt that Philpott is at the very extreme end of the "underclass" and is unique in his wickedness, but equally to deny there's not a group of people living outside the boundaries of normal society and seeing children as a commodity is silly.
"I think the Gold Cup if he can manage the distance, ..."
They won't want to overfaze the horse. The King George would be a good test. If he wins doing handsprings, they might be tempted by the GC. It would be a big ask but the division isn't terrifically strong, whereas there will be Simonsig in the QMC next year.
If you ever get the chance to see him in the flesh, take it. He may well be the best jumps horse I've ever seen. (I narrowly missed Arkle.)
.
Look at the subsamples. In the North, 49% raise some serious questions, in Scotland it is 46%. Only London and the South (at 39% and 40% respectively), keep it down to 43%.
I wonder why?
Memories indeed.
As for Iceland. I love it. The snow is on the mountains, the whale is delicious, the beer is sweet, the people are great. Yesterday I met the finance minister at her ministry and had a chat with her for half an hour. That kind of thing happens here. It's fantastic.
Grrrrrrrr....
And throw away the keys as well. So the next lot of management realise there are consequences for their acts.
I wonder why?
Putting everything else to one side, if those regional breakdowns are in any way accurate we can pretty safely say that this is not going to be a gamechanger for the Tories.
He's the second former MP I spotted standing in CC elections so far.
Based on 2011 and 2012 results he should gain the division.
It's long, but exposes the craziness of those slamming "tax breaks for millionaires". Apologies if you've seen it before. I hadn't and think it's rather wonderful.
The higher %s in the Midlands and the North are precisely why CON needs to go after this. The next GE will be won and lost in battleground counties like West Yorkshire.
South has low levels of unemployment - so scroungers aren't as common therefore don't wind people up.
Possibly, I suppose. But I would be surprised if the North or Scotland prove to be very happy hunting grounds for the Tories in 2015.
Being divebombed all afternoon by mother gulls makes the Icelandic delicacy of smoked Puffin all the more enjoyable at your dining table in the evening.
The answer to your question on benefits is that the vast majority of claimants are doing nothing wrong. A small proportion however are gaming the system by choosing a life of benefits dependency over a life of earned income from employment. Where possible the system should be modified to optimise work incentives and remove systemic bias towards benefit dependency.
Ths case did not reveal those excesses. They were revealed in 2007 in a national newspaper and subsequently - twice - on national TV.
What odds on a Tory / UKIP coalition at the next election, where the North votes UKIP?
Hmmm. More probably the answer is that the margin of error for the small Scottish subsample would be in the region of 10% (and even that's assuming that the figures were properly weighted, which they almost certainly weren't).
Unpredicted? Unpredicted by who? For goodness sake, it even formed the basis for the plot of an episode of "Yes Prime Minister" - the Smokescreen, in which Sir Humphrey points out that for the financial good of the country, "It is vital that people continue to die at about the current rate".
The increase in life expectancy was not only entirely predictable, it was predicted. Our politicians just refused to do anything about the inevitable consequences.
This is a potential election winner, for the Tories. And if they had a plausible WWC Tebbity leader in place, my guess is they'd win a majority. With Cam and Oz it is unlikely - but not impossible.
The obv irony is that PM Miliband will then have to enforce the biggest welfare cuts in UK history, anyway.
I did not write what you copied. But I don't think there has been a huge attitudional change. I think people have been suspiscious of aspects of the welfare system for a pretty long time. I have not seen any evidence that they ever treasured it in the way they treasure the NHS. I suspect that just as the riots of 2011were not a gamechanger, the Philpott case will not be either. But we shall see.
Perhaps the Betfair at Haydock on the way to the King George and then...if it came up really soft at Prestbury Park, I suspect they'd play it safe but otherwise until they can get him off the bridle, we won't know how deep his stamina reserves are.
On a line through First Lieutenant and Cue Card, you'd have to say he'd have won the Ryanair easily and on a line through Silvaninco Conti (more tenuous), you could argue he'd have gone close in the Gold Cup.
"A pretty waitress who called herself Alyona served me galbitang (beef soup), boricha (barley tea), sogogi bokkeum (fried beef with vegetables), and a bowl of kimchi (spicy fermented cabbage), along with several little plates of delicacies. I was sufficiently hungry and curious to have ordered half the menu, and when it was all laid out there in front of me didn’t feel particularly confident that I could finish it off. But every dish was delicious – far better that I could have expected from the price tag. I later heard that the staff are threatened with evacuation if they fail to produce results. So perhaps that explains the high quality.
Alyona (not her real name of course) told me she was from the North Korean capital, studying Russian, and had been in the country for six months. I tried to tell her that this place was much better than the Hyundai restaurant. She gave me a blank look. ‘You know, that big South Korean hotel in the city centre?’ No reaction. I got out my digital camera and showed her a picture of it that I’d taken that morning. She took a look, gave a little laugh, said she didn’t know the place, and walked away. And after that a different waitress started serving me. Oh dear I thought, I’ve touched on a forbidden subject – perhaps any mention of the evil capitalist South is banned here? But then looking around, that didn’t seem to be the case. The TV on the wall was made by Samsung. The DVD player was an LG. The lager in the fridge had Hite labels."
http://www.sabotagetimes.com/travel/peering-into-north-korea-from-the-russian-side/
Goodness gracious. Winning twice at once. That should be quite a landslide. Possibly.
The May local elections are going to be very entertaining indeed.
Still, as I said, the question is confused anyway.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304544/Ed-Balls-confesses-caught-speeding-despite-campaigning-20mph-zones.html
Typical stuck up labour politician part of a millionaires shadow front bench elite. just running roughshod over the little people and all those hard working families"
"Despicable" as the lefties would say and the Daily Mirror would say.
Ed Balls the gift that keeps on giving.
On the third rating, George rose again from the dead to sitteth on the right side of Dave the God almighty.
To misquote Paul McGann in the terrible Doctor Who "TV movie" -
"PB Tories. Always seeing patterns in things that aren't there."