Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-MORI: The demographic group which has most moved away

SystemSystem Posts: 11,005
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-MORI: The demographic group which has most moved away from the Tories since GE2010 – low paid working women

The FT is reporting this morning that aggregate polling data from Ipsos-MORI covering the twelve months until March 2013 shows that the group most likely to have been turned off the Tories since GE2010 have been low paid working women.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    IHWIHW Posts: 8
    edited April 2013
    I would suggest that these women need to be reminded of three things the Conservatives have done for them:
    1. Reduce their, and their family's IT bill: the LDs seek to claim credit for this - but their ambition of £10k personal allowance by 2015 has already been exceeded and the Con Manifesto for 2015 will surely indicate a rise to Min wage levels (or above) by 2020. The New Orthodoxy is not a lower rate of IT, but a vastly higher starting point.

    2. Point out that every £ borrowed by the State is a £ that they, and their children, will be taxed in the future to repay. Adding interest payments and every £ borrowed now will require £2 in additional taxes to repay it - and it is their children who will be paying that additional money - for 50 years or more.

    3. Provide what Conservative governments could and should have done over many years (and have been frustrated by Whitehall's mentality) namely provide a large Married Tax Allowance and allow free transfer of of the IT allowance between married couples and ONLY between married couples. A strengthening and reinforcement of marriage is long, long overdue.*

    * Other life-style choices are available to those who wish to choose them. The State just chooses to recognise marriage as the most important to Society. It's called discrimination, and it's an absolutely normal part of Life, the Universe and Everything and not something to be ashamed of: some actions and choices are inherently better than others (charity donations v mugging for example) and discriminating between them is perfectly normal.

    Politicians should be proud of discriminating in favour of certain lifestyle choices and not ashamed to show their beliefs - 'for evil to triumph, it is necessary only for good men to stay silent' - and 'progressive' changes to Society on the social context have advanced on that basis, thus inflating the Welfare costs, harming children, damaging families, communities and society and substituting rules, mores and traditions, with a 'do what you like - anything goes - every choice is valid and equal' approach which leads to cases like the Phillpotts.

    So, in summary, point out that their children will be far, far, better off under a hard-line, right-wing Conservative government than they ever could or would, be, under a variation of the failed Social Democracy which has so comprehensively screwed the UK since 1945 (Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Major, Blair, Brown: they're all the same debt-addicted vote-buyers).

    Edit: This preferred option (small-State, lower taxes, balanced Budget) form of government will not be on offer to the UK voter in 2015, but will surely be in 2020 and it is to secure Cameron's replacement having a thumping mandate that we all need to consider our 2015 GE vote very carefully indeed.

    A recent poll (6670 adults) splits 4:1 in favour of having a successful marriage over a successful career. The State has, for 40 years, actively encouraged us all to regard only the second as the measure of our personal success (since it means higher taxes).
    The additional costs of marriage breakdowns and unhappiness caused by the 'strivers' seeking to add career ambitions and demands to those of family and friends are ignored.

    Remember - the State wants only your taxes and all politicians want only your votes: nothing else about you and your life is of any importance to them. You may choose to think differently!
  • Options
    redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    edited April 2013
    Tories need a female leader, women vote for women; with a hint of sarcasm and irony it is a pity the best potential Tory candidate who is untarnished is now a UKIP prospective candidate in Eastleigh.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    If the Tories are polling around 29% with low-paid females, surely that's comparable with their overall support with the population in general (low thirties). Or were they over-polling with this group previously?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    I don't think the Tories should be too worried about this finding. Low-paid women are probably always the first group to get fed up with them after they've been in office for a few years and there's probably not much they can do about it.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Ed Balls' Tory opponent at the next election has been selected, Andrea Jenkyns:

    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/04/tory-candidate-to-face-ed-balls-in-terrible-amateur-music-video/
  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    edited April 2013
    Went to Nevada and spent one night in Reno and gambled gave away the princely sum of $7 in a casino. I could not even understand the slot machines, but found an easier one next to an elderly lady in an electric wheelchair.

    It was an interesting if rather sad experience.

    If someone suggested something similar for this country, I would be emphatically against after seeing the pawn shops and their equivalents in that town.

    On the other hand, Carson City was great with its dinky state house and very friendly people who worked in it.
  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    "It is this group, arguably, which has had to deal most with the consequences of austerity. "

    So the very last thing Cammie or Osbrowne would want to do is appear gleeful and posture like peacocks when introducing yet more austerity measures. Well, they blew that then.

    "The challenge is not about the rhetoric but addressing the reality of those managing on tight household budgets in difficult times. "

    The austerity is set to continue with no end in sight certainly until after 2015 and the next election. That being the case rhetoric is all the parties have but their problem is you can't fool those on the sharp end of austerity about how it affects them.

    They will hardly respond very well to being told a variation on how 'they've never had it so good,' since they will know precisely how every rearrangement/removal of child credits/child benefit/tax credits impacts when they have to budget for them.

    Equally any promises of jam tomorrow will also have to be far more credible than a few vague soundbites about 'Aspiration One Nation' or whatever.

    "The hope of the Tories is that Labour will not be seen to offer a viable alternative."

    If that's the case, and it may well be, what do the lib dems hope? A return to 'a plague on both your houses' voting? That won't come easily after they've been in coalition with the tories.

    Most likely just keep hoping everything can be solved for them with tactical voting as usual.
  • Options
    I'm baffled and bemused why we have no thread on Clegg on the piste:)
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Good morning, everyone.

    This seems somewhat unsurprising. Plus, aren't women likelier to be in public sector jobs, and therefore likelier to have lost them as the public sector workforce is reduced?

    I'm pretty sure women get more benefits too, because they're either part of couples or single parent (not many single parent fathers).

    As I've suggested before, the best way to make work pay is to cut benefits and taxes. Then people keep more of what they earn, and earning is encouraged (not, dear God, 'incentivised'. What an awful word).
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Not working out that they have had a tax cut correlates to not earning brain surgeon wages.


    Incitement of maths education under 13 years of Labour.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,287
    edited April 2013
    Am looking forward to reports in The Mirror about how Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Harriet Harman, Liam Byrne and other Labour figures spent their time with their families during the Parliamentary recess.

    The Mirror's front page on Clegg is quite frankly pathetic. If it was printed on soft, red, absorbent, perforated paper it would hardly be a surprise.

    MPs and political leaders are entitled to some holidays with or without their children. The Mirror made no issue of Ed M driving a locomotive during a holiday at New Year 2012.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    F1: early signs are the whole weekend in China will be dry. Obviously, it's a week away so things could change.

    I'll put up the early discussion thread on Monday. In the meantime, those of you excited by front end grip might like this article: http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-evolution-of-the-modern-front-wing-part-2/

    It's rather technical but I found it pretty interesting.
  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    @tim

    Surely the best idea would be for the nasty party to tell the voters that they are too stupid to know 'they've never had it so good'? Even better, get Osbrowne to do it personally after he pops out for a pizza.

    What could possibly go wrong? ;^)
  • Options
    Morning all.
    O/T A funny tag running on Twitter this morning.
    My favorite so far: #horsenames Top-rate Striver two lengths clear of Undeserving Poor
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Dr. Spyn, just seen that front page. Not a particular Clegg fan but "Man goes on holiday - the bastard" is not a sentiment with which I can agree.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,287
    @Morris_Dancer

    Mirror is becoming unfit for purpose as lining for the budgie's cage. Am amazed it thought that Cable wasn't shirking when he went dancing on tv.
  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    Ah well, Clegg can at least be certain his lib dem colleagues are fully behind him as usual and won't raise anything troublesome while he's on his hols.
    Senior Lib Dems want Nick Clegg to promise a return to 50p top rate

    Manifesto should distance party from 'tax cut for millionaires'

    Nick Clegg is under pressure from senior Liberal Democrats to fight the 2015 election on a pledge to restore the 50p rate of tax on earnings over £150,000 a year, which will be reduced to 45p.

    With Labour expected to promise in its next election manifesto to bring back the 50p top rate, the Conservatives could find themselves isolated as they defend what Labour has dubbed a “tax cut for millionaires”.

    Today the Lib Dems joined Labour in criticising George Osborne after the Chancellor suggested that the case of Mick Philpott, the unemployed man who killed six of his 17 children in a fire, reinforced the need for welfare reform.

    Danny Alexander, the Chancellor’s Lib Dem deputy who is normally loyal to his Treasury boss, said: “George Osborne is right that there needs to be a wide debate about the future of our welfare system, but the Philpott case is an individual tragedy. Children have died in that case. I think that’s where we should let that case lie. I wouldn’t want to connect that to the much wider need to reform our welfare system.
    Probably the most 'helpful' and 'welcome' interjection for Clegg...
    Tim Farron, its president, told the Lib Dem Voice website: “Cutting the top rate was a stupid thing to do. It probably raised up to £3bn a year. We should pledge to restore the 50p rate at the next election. It’s not enough to be fair, you have to be seen to be fair.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/senior-lib-dems-want-nick-clegg-to-promise-a-return-to-50p-top-rate-8562678.html
    Farron has your back Clegg. No need to worry. ;)
  • Options
    steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    Except for public sector workers have low paid women been hit by austerity?
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,287
    edited April 2013
    50% income tax rate so symbolic of Brown's warped mind that he reintroduced it just before he knew he was effectively out of power. Totemic nonsense, and economically futile. Why not salt the earth and poison the wells?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    If you see services you have depended on reduced as your family's living standards continue to fall, while your unemployed relations and friends are penalised for "not doing the right thing" even though they are desperate to work then it might be hard to accept the Tories have your best interests at heart.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    £3bn a year, Mr. Pork? Won't we have some figures confirming or disproving that before the next election?

    Of course, that only matters if the reasoning behind voting is to maximise Treasury income rather than punitively hit the rich.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Tory tax cut leaflet being handed out today.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/134255558/24m-Tax-Cut-Leaflet
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Mr. Observer, that analysis does rather ignore a crippling deficit and record debt, doesn't it?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    Tax on my NHS pension has gone UP!
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    If you wondered how big The Chair really is - try this

    https://twitter.com/EllyOldroyd/status/320439187105013761/photo/1
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @williamhillNews: Happy Grand National Day! We have gone 12/1 the field. Whoever you want, we're at least 12/1. Seabass 12/1, On His Own 12/1 #GrandNational
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    £3bn a year, Mr. Pork? Won't we have some figures confirming or disproving that before the next election?

    Of course, that only matters if the reasoning behind voting is to maximise Treasury income rather than punitively hit the rich.

    The figures we have will be artificial as bonuses, dividend payments etc will have been delayed to take advantage of the new rate - so reducing the 50 pence take in its final year and artificially boosting the 45 pence take. Cynical stuff from Osborne, but no great surprise.

  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013

    Won't we have some figures confirming or disproving that before the next election?

    Just "some"? All the parties will have a surfeit of statistics and figures to play with to see which ones and who the voter believes.

  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited April 2013
    Plato said:

    Tory tax cut leaflet being handed out today.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/134255558/24m-Tax-Cut-Leaflet

    Interesting tag line, for "hardworking people". Almost Blairite. But I've never associated hard work with Tories.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Mr. Observer, two points:
    Didn't Mervyn King advise firms not to do that, and get at least some big names to confirm they wouldn't?

    Would we have time to get the 2014 figures (whether whole or just H1) prior to the 2015 (presumed) General Election.

    Furthermore, how could Osborne have cut the rate without being 'cynical', in your eyes? It's not like he slashed his own salary six minutes before an expected electoral defeat.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    Mr. Observer, that analysis does rather ignore a crippling deficit and record debt, doesn't it?

    It is Osborne who has chosen to frame things in terms of shirkers versus strivers. His message is clear: state support is being cut for the feckless and the idle; so if your state support is being cut you are feckless and idle. The LibDems messaging is very different even though they, too, own the decisions being made.

  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    Jonathan said:

    Interesting tag line, for "hardworking people". Almost Blairite.

    Blair went with the hardworking families spin. Cammie at least changed one word.
    Not that the voter is ever particularly impressed by such vapid soundbites.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Mr. Observer, the horrid term 'strivers' [who the hell uses that term in real life?] has been used, but I can't recall the Coalition referring to 'shirkers'.

    And that still utterly ignores the wider fiscal picture (ie massive deficit and debt).
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    Mr. Observer, two points:
    Didn't Mervyn King advise firms not to do that, and get at least some big names to confirm they wouldn't?

    Would we have time to get the 2014 figures (whether whole or just H1) prior to the 2015 (presumed) General Election.

    Furthermore, how could Osborne have cut the rate without being 'cynical', in your eyes? It's not like he slashed his own salary six minutes before an expected electoral defeat.

    Just because Brown was cynical and inept does not mean Osborne has to be too!

    Some big companies have not delayed payments; many, many more have; or have given staff the option. There is nothing illegal about it. It's not just the top rate that's been cut though; the tax on dividends has been too. It's a super double boost for the wealthiest.

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570

    I can't recall the Coalition referring to 'shirkers'.

    Liam Byrne is the fan of "shirkers":

    : “Labour is the party of hard workers not free-riders. The clue is in the name. We are the Labour party. The party that said that idleness is an evil. The party of workers, not shirkers.”


    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/01/09/this-is-why-liam-byrne-cannot-lead-labour-on-welfare/
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    Jonathan said:

    Plato said:

    Tory tax cut leaflet being handed out today.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/134255558/24m-Tax-Cut-Leaflet

    Interesting tag line, for "hardworking people". Almost Blairite. But I've never associated hard work with Tories.

    The implication of that leaflet is that if you don't feel you're getting a break from the Tories it's because you're not working hard enough. I can't see it changing very many minds! No wonder the LDs are running a mile from Osborne's messaging - even Danny Alexander thinks he's gone too far on the Philpott stuff.

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    The other change in the Tory strap line - discussed yesterday by Mr Navabi - is the use of the Union flag - it's replaced the green part of the tree,
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    tim said:

    OFlynnExpress
    @oflynnexpress: Danny Alexander helps Lab attack on Os by sniffily refusing to comment on individual welfare cases ie Philpott #Today

    Good for him.

  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    @IHW
    If the Tories last until 2020, what makes you think we will have a (meaningful) minimum wage by then?
    IHW said:

    I would suggest that these women need to be reminded of three things the Conservatives have done for them:
    1. Reduce their, and their family's IT bill: the LDs seek to claim credit for this - but their ambition of £10k personal allowance by 2015 has already been exceeded and the Con Manifesto for 2015 will surely indicate a rise to Min wage levels (or above) by 2020. The New Orthodoxy is not a lower rate of IT, but a vastly higher starting point.

    2. Point out that every £ borrowed by the State is a £ that they, and their children, will be taxed in the future to repay. Adding interest payments and every £ borrowed now will require £2 in additional taxes to repay it - and it is their children who will be paying that additional money - for 50 years or more.

    3. Provide what Conservative governments could and should have done over many years (and have been frustrated by Whitehall's mentality) namely provide a large Married Tax Allowance and allow free transfer of of the IT allowance between married couples and ONLY between married couples. A strengthening and reinforcement of marriage is long, long overdue.*

    * Other life-style choices are available to those who wish to choose them. The State just chooses to recognise marriage as the most important to Society. It's called discrimination, and it's an absolutely normal part of Life, the Universe and Everything and not something to be ashamed of: some actions and choices are inherently better than others (charity donations v mugging for example) and discriminating between them is perfectly normal.

    Politicians should be proud of discriminating in favour of certain lifestyle choices and not ashamed to show their beliefs - 'for evil to triumph, it is necessary only for good men to stay silent' - and 'progressive' changes to Society on the social context have advanced on that basis, thus inflating the Welfare costs, harming children, damaging families, communities and society and substituting rules, mores and traditions, with a 'do what you like - anything goes - every choice is valid and equal' approach which leads to cases like the Phillpotts.

    So, in summary, point out that their children will be far, far, better off under a hard-line, right-wing Conservative government than they ever could or would, be, under a variation of the failed Social Democracy which has so comprehensively screwed the UK since 1945 (Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Major, Blair, Brown: they're all the same debt-addicted vote-buyers).

    Edit: This preferred option (small-State, lower taxes, balanced Budget) form of government will not be on offer to the UK voter in 2015, but will surely be in 2020 and it is to secure Cameron's replacement having a thumping mandate that we all need to consider our 2015 GE vote very carefully indeed.

    A recent poll (6670 adults) splits 4:1 in favour of having a successful marriage over a successful career. The State has, for 40 years, actively encouraged us all to regard only the second as the measure of our personal success (since it means higher taxes).
    The additional costs of marriage breakdowns and unhappiness caused by the 'strivers' seeking to add career ambitions and demands to those of family and friends are ignored.

    Remember - the State wants only your taxes and all politicians want only your votes: nothing else about you and your life is of any importance to them. You may choose to think differently!

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    Danny Alexander also saying on R4: Wealthy are paying more in every year of this govt than they did during the entire period Labour was in office says @dannyalexander #r4today
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Went to Nevada and spent one night in Reno and gambled gave away the princely sum of $7 in a casino. I could not even understand the slot machines, but found an easier one next to an elderly lady in an electric wheelchair.

    It was an interesting if rather sad experience.

    If someone suggested something similar for this country, I would be emphatically against after seeing the pawn shops and their equivalents in that town.

    On the other hand, Carson City was great with its dinky state house and very friendly people who worked in it.

    I had a similar experience. Vegas was the reason I turned against super casinos.
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    Except for public sector workers have low paid women been hit by austerity?

    Women react more than men to anything to do with public services because they interact with them more whether for themselves, through their kids, elderly rellies etc.
  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    Duel on the ski skopes. It just needs the theme from the good, the bad and the ugly. ;^)
    imageimage
  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    @Socrates
    I was appalled when Labour suggested the introduction of super casinos.

    It was a ludicrous idea to suggest they would regenerate deprived areas.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    Balls on the Beeb just sounds like a weasel every time he speaks.
  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    edited April 2013
    HTML mess up.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,319
    People would like to see a coherent strategy that doesn't get side-tracked from any of the parties. It's not the general perception that the Government has one, and Labour is remaining largely inscrutable until 2015. Failing that, they opt for the party that seems least alien, which for lower-income women in particular is often Labour (for others it may sometime be UKIP). Perhaps that's why Osborne has been trying out a Mockney accent, but pretending to be something you're not is WORSE than being an alien.

    Can someone (andrea!) give an overall picture of the % of English seats being contested by UKIP? Probably the most significant new item of information in terms of the May elections.

    DavidL - response to your comment on my blog is up, though I still want to add a post on tax credits. (If you sub to the blog you'll get an auto-notification.)
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    Hmmmm

    so Balls policy is we'd do lots of nice things, but don't ask me to commit to anything since the election is a long way away. It sort of raises the question why anyone should interview him until 2015 since he has nothing to say.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    @Socrates
    I was appalled when Labour suggested the introduction of super casinos.

    It was a ludicrous idea to suggest they would regenerate deprived areas.

    In Vegas when you see people playing slot machines for seemingly hours in gas stations, it shows you the extent of addiction. This might not be a popular place to say it, but I think we should ban gambling advertisements. The temptation it gives to addicts, which can lead to people destroying their lives again, seems to easily outweigh the minor disadvantage it gives to sensible gamblers.
  • Options
    @Tim
    Labour have spent the last few months quoting individual cases as they've ranted against every single welfare reform - odd that you don't criticize them.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    Except for public sector workers have low paid women been hit by austerity?

    If you are talking about directly in terms of take home salary it depends on what they earn. But they will have been affected by things such as the changes to housing benefit payments, tax credit reductions, the VAT rise, the employee NI rise, reductions in council services, increases in the cost of public transport and so on. All this against a background of low or non-existent salary increases and a general rise in the cost of living.

    They need to start doing the right thing and working harder. Then the Tories will look after them.

  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    UKIP set for council surge
    UKIP is aiming to build on its good performance in the Eastleigh by-election by fielding a record 1,700 candidates for the local council elections on May 2.

    Some pollsters predict the party could get as much as 15% of the vote, up from 6% in the 2009 elections.

    Link Politics Home.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754

    Except for public sector workers have low paid women been hit by austerity?

    If you are talking about directly in terms of take home salary it depends on what they earn. But they will have been affected by things such as the changes to housing benefit payments, tax credit reductions, the VAT rise, the employee NI rise, reductions in council services, increases in the cost of public transport and so on. All this against a background of low or non-existent salary increases and a general rise in the cost of living.

    They need to start doing the right thing and working harder. Then the Tories will look after them.

    The outrage is easy, but doesn't solve the problem. Oddly in this recession jobs are being created. So rather than rail against benefit changes, shouldn't the question be why aren't locals more involved in the workforce ? If a bulgarian turned up in Rochdale in January would he be more likely to find a job than a local on welfare who speaks the lingo and knows the area ?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    tim said:

    If anyone being hit by the bedroom tax goes out and kills six children I doubt you'll find anyone sick enough to link the two.

    If Philpott had waited he could well have been a benficiary of the bedroom tax. The Tories clearly want to give feckless, idle, benefit-abusing, child-breeding skivers extra help. And if it means evicting the disabled and hard working families, so be it. Why do they seek to censor debate about this?

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    Tebbit asks a nice question

    If Miliband D resigns from Sunderland because Di canio is a fascist, will Miliband E cut himself off from any Union with Communists on its board ?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited April 2013
    That's a seriously unimpressive article. Many of the overarching points are fine (the key issue for me about £53 per week is that there is absolutely no slack if there is a problem or an unexpected bill - this often leads to short term borrowing and a subsequent spiral due to interest costs).

    However her whining - "I bought a Lucozade for £1.99 because I was feeling light-headed" - is just garbage. It's possible to live on £53 per week after rent and bills (my wife - admittedly 10 years ago - lived for a while on $60/£40 a week) but it is pretty soul-destroying after a while

    EDIT: Socrates's link is to the Telegraph a far better article. And it reminded me of the most irritating thing about Zoe Williams article. She complained she had to buy little pots of (chopped and pre-prepared) peppers at £1 a go for her kids. At my local Tesco (in central London, so presumably not the cheapest) you can buy 3 peppers for 99p. Use one knife and 5 minutes and you have already saved £2 from her spending.
  • Options
    Why do they seek to censor debate about this?

    What evidence is there that anyone seeks to censor debate about a benefit reduction?
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Spectator_CH: Tories go on tax offensive http://specc.ie/Xv5sNi
  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    I completely agree with you.
    Socrates said:

    @Socrates
    I was appalled when Labour suggested the introduction of super casinos.

    It was a ludicrous idea to suggest they would regenerate deprived areas.

    In Vegas when you see people playing slot machines for seemingly hours in gas stations, it shows you the extent of addiction. This might not be a popular place to say it, but I think we should ban gambling advertisements. The temptation it gives to addicts, which can lead to people destroying their lives again, seems to easily outweigh the minor disadvantage it gives to sensible gamblers.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Socrates said:

    @Socrates
    I was appalled when Labour suggested the introduction of super casinos.

    It was a ludicrous idea to suggest they would regenerate deprived areas.

    In Vegas when you see people playing slot machines for seemingly hours in gas stations, it shows you the extent of addiction. This might not be a popular place to say it, but I think we should ban gambling advertisements. The temptation it gives to addicts, which can lead to people destroying their lives again, seems to easily outweigh the minor disadvantage it gives to sensible gamblers.
    I'm with you on that, the over eagerness of advertising for betting, and especially bingo on the telly shows that company is verging on the distastful. Especially the nature of the advertising tries to highlight the glamour and 'sexiness' of gambling, which is often far removed from the reality.

    Although I feel people should be free to do broadly what they wish, I am uncomfortable with it.

    Not to mention that the adverts are overwhelmingly all crap.
  • Options
    Another Labour supporting writer joins a lengthening list saying that Ed Milliband cannot win with such a lack of credible policies on welfare etc. Jonathan Freedland joins, Rawnsley, Rentoul, Riddell, Collins and Watt. But this site seems to say lets move along and ignore them.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/labour-draw-sting-welfare-or-lose-2015

    "Above all, Labour has to address the sentiment that lies at the heart of those anti-welfare poll numbers: resentment at the thought that people are getting something for nothing."
  • Options
    CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Charles said:

    That's a seriously unimpressive article. Many of the overarching points are fine (the key issue for me about £53 per week is that there is absolutely no slack if there is a problem or an unexpected bill - this often leads to short term borrowing and a subsequent spiral due to interest costs).

    However her whining - "I bought a Lucozade for £1.99 because I was feeling light-headed" - is just garbage. It's possible to live on £53 per week after rent and bills (my wife - admittedly 10 years ago - lived for a while on $60/£40 a week) but it is pretty soul-destroying after a while

    EDIT: Socrates's link is to the Telegraph a far better article. And it reminded me of the most irritating thing about Zoe Williams article. She complained she had to buy little pots of (chopped and pre-prepared) peppers at £1 a go for her kids. At my local Tesco (in central London, so presumably not the cheapest) you can buy 3 peppers for 99p. Use one knife and 5 minutes and you have already saved £2 from her spending.
    I think she means from on-street sellers. I've seen them in poorer parts of London and in Stoke. In Brighton, not so much.

  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    This is a ridiculous and worrying attitude that is clearly ignoring public concerns and direct intervention from the SoS. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9975447/1000-GPs-gagged-from-talking-about-local-health-services.html

    "The extraordinary restrictions placed on staff at more than 200 GP practices have been drawn up by Clinical Commissiong Groups (CCGs), which took responsibility for the NHS budget on Monday.

    The decisions were taken even though Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, last month said any clauses which stopped staff from speaking about patient safety or care should be banned.

    Documents seen by the Daily Telegraph show that CCGs covering swathes of the country have issued hundreds of doctors with restrictions which mean they can say nothing about the work of their CCG, without written permission from those in charge of it.

    The clauses are significant because the organisations hold responsibility for most of the NHS budget, and will make crucial decisions affecting patient safety and care - such as which drugs and treatments to fund, and whether to close any local services.

    NHS Newbury and District, NHS Sutton, NHS Dorset, NHS Thurrock and NHS Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead CCGs have all placed clauses in their constitutions that prevent all GPs working in local practices from saying anything about the work of the CCG without prior approval from the senior figures running it.
  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    But do tell us about Lucozade.

    It's a sleepy little hamlet near the Lancashire/Essex border. ;)

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    Except for public sector workers have low paid women been hit by austerity?

    If you are talking about directly in terms of take home salary it depends on what they earn. But they will have been affected by things such as the changes to housing benefit payments, tax credit reductions, the VAT rise, the employee NI rise, reductions in council services, increases in the cost of public transport and so on. All this against a background of low or non-existent salary increases and a general rise in the cost of living.

    They need to start doing the right thing and working harder. Then the Tories will look after them.

    The outrage is easy, but doesn't solve the problem. Oddly in this recession jobs are being created. So rather than rail against benefit changes, shouldn't the question be why aren't locals more involved in the workforce ? If a bulgarian turned up in Rochdale in January would he be more likely to find a job than a local on welfare who speaks the lingo and knows the area ?

    I'm not talking about the unemployed. I'm referring to women on low pay working in the private sector and identifying some of the ways that they have been hit by austerity.

    I could not agree more about people not taking work when it is available. But the thing about the Bulgarian is that he/she has just turned up. There are no issues to worry about, work does not have to fit in around, say, a family, a sick relative, a disability and so on. No-ne serius would deny that there are people out there who are abusing the system. The issue is whether there enough of them to justify a wholesale reworking of the benefits regime that does and will have an impact on a great many extremely vulnerable people who are desprate to "do the right thing" but for one reason or another can't.

  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,319
    Charles said:

    That's a seriously unimpressive article. Many of the overarching points are fine (the key issue for me about £53 per week is that there is absolutely no slack if there is a problem or an unexpected bill - this often leads to short term borrowing and a subsequent spiral due to interest costs).

    However her whining - "I bought a Lucozade for £1.99 because I was feeling light-headed" - is just garbage. It's possible to live on £53 per week after rent and bills (my wife - admittedly 10 years ago - lived for a while on $60/£40 a week) but it is pretty soul-destroying after a while

    EDIT: Socrates's link is to the Telegraph a far better article. And it reminded me of the most irritating thing about Zoe Williams article. She complained she had to buy little pots of (chopped and pre-prepared) peppers at £1 a go for her kids. At my local Tesco (in central London, so presumably not the cheapest) you can buy 3 peppers for 99p. Use one knife and 5 minutes and you have already saved £2 from her spending.
    Yes, Socrates' article is much better-researched and more serious. They both make the point (as do you) that living on benefits without going into debt requires almost military self-discipline - buying a Lucozade or eating peppers in pre-prepared portions is not just a bit silly but a mistake that will have immediate consequences.

    Many people do manage to adjust to this (and then not unnaturally resent being depicted as idle scroungers with a leaning to child murder). Others just stagger from one crisis to another. Over the long haul, either way, it's barely tolerable without falling into either depression or illegal activity.

  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    @Tim
    And if the fridge or cooker packs in, you are truly screwed.
    Well, there is always Wonga or Brighthouse.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:



    In Newcastle where she lives there are 6,300 households hit by the bedroom tax
    There are 50 one bedroomed places in the public sector and 68 places in the private sector available at under £100 per week

    And how many small housing units will be freed up by a family that needs more room moving into the space vacates?

    Of course it would be easier if there was a larger float of vacant property, but holding this stock has a carrying cost in its own right
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    If you haven't seen this - it's brilliant, a hamster with a whole cream cracker in its mouth.

    https://twitter.com/Fascinatingpics/status/320310405203382272/photo/1
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    Another Labour supporting writer joins a lengthening list saying that Ed Milliband cannot win with such a lack of credible policies on welfare etc. Jonathan Freedland joins, Rawnsley, Rentoul, Riddell, Collins and Watt. But this site seems to say lets move along and ignore them.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/labour-draw-sting-welfare-or-lose-2015

    "Above all, Labour has to address the sentiment that lies at the heart of those anti-welfare poll numbers: resentment at the thought that people are getting something for nothing."

    I'd be interested in a link to anything on here from any critic of the Tories which says or even implies that Labour should ignore welfare. It seems to me that it pretty much dominates discussions on here and elsewhere right now.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    On the subject of gambling, hmm well I think the pokeys as you call them are probably the only thing that keeps brick and mortar bet shops open. And without brick and mortar bet shops, well it would probably all be online. Perhaps that would be better ? Not sure we can ban all froms of gambling, if you want to go after the 'worst' in terms of that which absolubtely can not be beaten then you'll need to ban slots & pokeys then bingo then the lottery
  • Options
    CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805

    Charles said:

    That's a seriously unimpressive article. Many of the overarching points are fine (the key issue for me about £53 per week is that there is absolutely no slack if there is a problem or an unexpected bill - this often leads to short term borrowing and a subsequent spiral due to interest costs).

    However her whining - "I bought a Lucozade for £1.99 because I was feeling light-headed" - is just garbage. It's possible to live on £53 per week after rent and bills (my wife - admittedly 10 years ago - lived for a while on $60/£40 a week) but it is pretty soul-destroying after a while

    EDIT: Socrates's link is to the Telegraph a far better article. And it reminded me of the most irritating thing about Zoe Williams article. She complained she had to buy little pots of (chopped and pre-prepared) peppers at £1 a go for her kids. At my local Tesco (in central London, so presumably not the cheapest) you can buy 3 peppers for 99p. Use one knife and 5 minutes and you have already saved £2 from her spending.
    Yes, Socrates' article is much better-researched and more serious. They both make the point (as do you) that living on benefits without going into debt requires almost military self-discipline - buying a Lucozade or eating peppers in pre-prepared portions is not just a bit silly but a mistake that will have immediate consequences.

    Many people do manage to adjust to this (and then not unnaturally resent being depicted as idle scroungers with a leaning to child murder). Others just stagger from one crisis to another. Over the long haul, either way, it's barely tolerable without falling into either depression or illegal activity.


    I don't think she's talking about pre prepared peppers. She's talking about the veg/fruit that street sellers flog in big plastic bowls for a quid - usually when it's on the turn.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    @Charles

    Last we heard from you you'd be unable to survive a mansion tax despite claiming £4 million equity in your property due to house price inflation

    But do tell us about Lucozade.

    None of what you wrote about me in the first sentence is true. But that won't stop you.

    My point was that Zoe Williams' article was bad - that she didn't think through her spending habits to live within the available budget. Basically she flunked the challenge.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Carola said:

    Charles said:

    That's a seriously unimpressive article. Many of the overarching points are fine (the key issue for me about £53 per week is that there is absolutely no slack if there is a problem or an unexpected bill - this often leads to short term borrowing and a subsequent spiral due to interest costs).

    However her whining - "I bought a Lucozade for £1.99 because I was feeling light-headed" - is just garbage. It's possible to live on £53 per week after rent and bills (my wife - admittedly 10 years ago - lived for a while on $60/£40 a week) but it is pretty soul-destroying after a while

    EDIT: Socrates's link is to the Telegraph a far better article. And it reminded me of the most irritating thing about Zoe Williams article. She complained she had to buy little pots of (chopped and pre-prepared) peppers at £1 a go for her kids. At my local Tesco (in central London, so presumably not the cheapest) you can buy 3 peppers for 99p. Use one knife and 5 minutes and you have already saved £2 from her spending.
    I think she means from on-street sellers. I've seen them in poorer parts of London and in Stoke. In Brighton, not so much.

    May be, I've not seen them. But presumably they don't contain 3 peppers?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    tim said:

    @Charles

    Last we heard from you you'd be unable to survive a mansion tax despite claiming £4 million equity in your property due to house price inflation

    But do tell us about Lucozade.

    Carola said:

    Charles said:

    That's a seriously unimpressive article. Many of the overarching points are fine (the key issue for me about £53 per week is that there is absolutely no slack if there is a problem or an unexpected bill - this often leads to short term borrowing and a subsequent spiral due to interest costs).

    However her whining - "I bought a Lucozade for £1.99 because I was feeling light-headed" - is just garbage. It's possible to live on £53 per week after rent and bills (my wife - admittedly 10 years ago - lived for a while on $60/£40 a week) but it is pretty soul-destroying after a while

    EDIT: Socrates's link is to the Telegraph a far better article. And it reminded me of the most irritating thing about Zoe Williams article. She complained she had to buy little pots of (chopped and pre-prepared) peppers at £1 a go for her kids. At my local Tesco (in central London, so presumably not the cheapest) you can buy 3 peppers for 99p. Use one knife and 5 minutes and you have already saved £2 from her spending.
    I think she means from on-street sellers. I've seen them in poorer parts of London and in Stoke. In Brighton, not so much.

    And the plastic bowls of peppers that she is referring to are the plastic bowls of whole peppers that you see on display outside grocers which hold three peppers and say yours for a quid.

    I am not sure Charles actually lives in the real world!!!!!

  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Pulpstar said:

    On the subject of gambling, hmm well I think the pokeys as you call them are probably the only thing that keeps brick and mortar bet shops open. And without brick and mortar bet shops, well it would probably all be online. Perhaps that would be better ? Not sure we can ban all froms of gambling, if you want to go after the 'worst' in terms of that which absolubtely can not be beaten then you'll need to ban slots & pokeys then bingo then the lottery

    At least with the lottery you have the belief that 1) some of it is going to good causes, and 2) it lets you have that dream of totally changing your life. And if it costs a few quid a week to keep the dream alive then why not?

    But your point is valid
  • Options
    AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Coming up next in the Labour world:

    Today:

    - The NEC Panel interviews longlisted applicants for South Shields

    - Tower Hamlets Labour select their Mayoral candidate

    On Monday

    - The NEC will ratify Euro candidates shortlists (basically the available number of sposts +1 in each region). Then the ranking will follow (ballot this summer)

    On Wednesday

    - South Shields CLP meet to pick up the candidate.

    Lots of selections in target seats are about to start and so runners and riders are already declaring.

    Where's Neil? I have 2 names for Bermondsey & Old Southwark.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    #horsenames RT @hwallop: Telegraph Births column today: "a beautiful baby boy Orlando Darcy, a brother to India and Calypso"
  • Options
    CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    edited April 2013
    Charles said:

    Carola said:

    Charles said:

    That's a seriously unimpressive article. Many of the overarching points are fine (the key issue for me about £53 per week is that there is absolutely no slack if there is a problem or an unexpected bill - this often leads to short term borrowing and a subsequent spiral due to interest costs).

    However her whining - "I bought a Lucozade for £1.99 because I was feeling light-headed" - is just garbage. It's possible to live on £53 per week after rent and bills (my wife - admittedly 10 years ago - lived for a while on $60/£40 a week) but it is pretty soul-destroying after a while

    EDIT: Socrates's link is to the Telegraph a far better article. And it reminded me of the most irritating thing about Zoe Williams article. She complained she had to buy little pots of (chopped and pre-prepared) peppers at £1 a go for her kids. At my local Tesco (in central London, so presumably not the cheapest) you can buy 3 peppers for 99p. Use one knife and 5 minutes and you have already saved £2 from her spending.
    I think she means from on-street sellers. I've seen them in poorer parts of London and in Stoke. In Brighton, not so much.

    May be, I've not seen them. But presumably they don't contain 3 peppers?

    Three at least. Usually more from what I've seen. Certainly cheaper than the high street (which tend to be more expensive than the not as easily accessible out of town superstores, esp for fresh produce) big name store prices.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited April 2013
    Mick_Pork said:



    tim said:

    But do tell us about Lucozade.

    It's a sleepy little hamlet near the Lancashire/Essex border. ;)

    Actually it is a sugary flavoured drink, originally developed (I believe) by Beecham Group but currently owned by GlaxoSmithKline and managed through their nutritionals division, alongside Ribena and Horlicks. The brand has achieved great market recognition in the UK, and certain former Commonwealth countries, in particularly New Zealand and Australia (a similar market penetration pattern to Ribena, but very different to Horlicks which does incredibly well in India).

    When I last caught up with David about it, they are considering a sale of the business as part of the overall process of cleaning up the brand portfolio within the Consumer Division. Emma has been doing a great job of this since she took over and Andy is very happy with the outcome. Simon's just a deal junkie so he won't stand in Emma's way, provided that the multiple achieved is acceptable. And that's the problem - in the past David has said that the business is valued by shareholders as an OTC business (I disagree) but that the highest multiple that someone will pay for it is X (a substantial discount to the valuation of an OTC business). That said, if it is a pruning exercise, they will probably accept a lower price - and there will be substantial tax to pay despite the losses that they have tucked away in the UK companies.

    Is that enough? I can talk a lot about Lucozade.
  • Options

    I'd be interested in a link to anything on here from any critic of the Tories which says or even implies that Labour should ignore welfare. It seems to me that it pretty much dominates discussions on here and elsewhere right now.

    Southam you miss the point that they are saying that Ed Milliband cannot win with such a lack of credible policies on welfare etc.

    They are not saying that Labour is ignoring welfare. What they are saying is that Ed Milliband has a lack of credible policies to address the views of voters on welfare.

    Simply opposing every cut is not viewed (by them) as a credible political platform.

  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited April 2013

    Socrates's link is to the Telegraph a far better article. And it reminded me of the most irritating thing about Zoe Williams article. She complained she had to buy little pots of (chopped and pre-prepared) peppers at £1 a go for her kids. At my local Tesco (in central London, so presumably not the cheapest) you can buy 3 peppers for 99p. Use one knife and 5 minutes and you have already saved £2 from her spending.

    Yes, Socrates' article is much better-researched and more serious. They both make the point (as do you) that living on benefits without going into debt requires almost military self-discipline - buying a Lucozade or eating peppers in pre-prepared portions is not just a bit silly but a mistake that will have immediate consequences.

    Many people do manage to adjust to this (and then not unnaturally resent being depicted as idle scroungers with a leaning to child murder). Others just stagger from one crisis to another. Over the long haul, either way, it's barely tolerable without falling into either depression or illegal activity.



    It does seem to be that way if you don't have children, where the benefits system does seem tough on spend (if maybe not eligibility). However, people with large numbers of children do seem to have much more spare capacity with a generous system.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Oh dear, Charles has interpreted the market stall discounted green peppers as nice little tubs of pre sliced Waitrose snackpots.

    Only on PB

    I'm just more cynical about Zoe Williams and her ilk than you
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    I'd be interested in a link to anything on here from any critic of the Tories which says or even implies that Labour should ignore welfare. It seems to me that it pretty much dominates discussions on here and elsewhere right now.

    Southam you miss the point that they are saying that Ed Milliband cannot win with such a lack of credible policies on welfare etc.

    They are not saying that Labour is ignoring welfare. What they are saying is that Ed Milliband has a lack of credible policies to address the views of voters on welfare.

    Simply opposing every cut is not viewed (by them) as a credible political platform.

    OK, sorry. I agree with that. By the time the election comes Labour needs to have a credible alternative to what the Tories are proposing.

  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Charles said:

    Is that enough? I can talk a lot about Lucozade.

    Yes Charles, how anyone could possibly think you are out of touch with the average voter is indeed mystifying. Your spin is as grounded as ever.

    *chortle*
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Interesting political betting tip coming up from David Herdson

    After lumch
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,200
    Former Commonwealth? I thought Aus and NZ are still in the Commonwealth.
  • Options


    OK, sorry. I agree with that. By the time the election comes Labour needs to have a credible alternative to what the Tories are proposing.

    They are actually saying that Labour needs a credible platform on the economy and welfare far sooner than "by the time of the election". That without it now, Labour are just allowing the Conservatives to pile up a picture of Labour as the lazy man on the sofa.

    It is an interesting game to watch being played out. These Labour supporters many of whom are a generation older than Ed Milliband, are giving advice from their experience.
  • Options
    glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    tim said:

    I just realised we're now going to get a load of "my family has been involved in the pepper trade since the reign of Richard The First" posts.

    Sorry everyone

    Do you grow them on your farm?
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited April 2013


    OK, sorry. I agree with that. By the time the election comes Labour needs to have a credible alternative to what the Tories are proposing.

    They are actually saying that Labour needs a credible platform on the economy and welfare far sooner than "by the time of the election". That without it now, Labour are just allowing the Conservatives to pile up a picture of Labour as the lazy man on the sofa.

    It is an interesting game to watch being played out. These Labour supporters many of whom are a generation older than Ed Milliband, are giving advice from their experience.
    They are totally wrong. Remember the big Dave/Osbo mistake in the pre-GE2010 period was getting too specific about policy.

    It is a bad strategy for oppositions to go into policy detail two years beforehand though you can undestand why Tories would like them to.
  • Options
    Women are much more likely to be doing the shopping and juggling the household bills, therefore impacted directly by inflation. When wages are stagnant and costs rising it is unsurprising that low paid women are unhappy!
  • Options
    Excellent piece, Mike.

    I suspect this group may well be voting heavily UKIP in future.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @clarebalding
    Here goes then: 1. Rare Bob, 2. Teatforthree, 3. Seabass, 4. Chicago Grey. #GrandNational
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    Peppers ? I find they are very overpriced and thats in Morrisons ! 3 peppers for over a quid. Normally avoid em unless I'm feeling rich.
  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Interesting article.
    Mrs Justice Thirlwall: The one woman Philpott couldn't defeat

    Thirlwall issued a judgement so razor-sharp that when I read the full transcript I felt like punching the air

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mrs-justice-thirlwall-the-one-woman-philpott-couldnt-defeat-8562469.html
  • Options
    AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    From a NEC report

    "Many members urged him to pledge to reverse the bedroom tax, where social housing tenants lose benefit if they are judged to have too many rooms. Ed Balls described the tax as wrong morally and economically. . ......
    However he would not make specific promises two years out from an election and risk being hammered by “tax bombshell” propaganda. He was backed by Ken Livingstone, who took part in pre-1992 policy decisions when the NEC was still a power in the land and described them, with hindsight, as errors. "



This discussion has been closed.