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.
The way to square the circle for now is to focus on competence. The voters think money is being wasted on the undeserving, and the papers won't let up on that idea no matter what the government do. But they also think they and their friends are deserving, so any actual cut that affects them can only be some grotesque administrative error, made worse by the fact that, according to the papers, the undeserving are still taking the piss.
What makes this even more politically attractive than usual is that there's a strong possibility that things like the Universal Credit will actually involve a lot of serious administrative problems.
"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."
Agree Labour would be mad to start making any firm policy announcements more than a few months before May 2015. The other parties would be painting Labour as the irresponsible party, that could not be trusted to run the country again. Labour need to run a pretty bland campaign, with general themes and to deal with any negative campaigning by the Tories. The Tories will have much more money to spend and I expect Lynton Crosby to run a pretty dirty campaign. Expect the Tories to say that Labour covered up the mid-staffs hospital scandal, so cannot be trusted to look after the interests of NHS patients. I am expecting the dirtiest GE campaign that has ever been run.
"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."
Agree Labour would be mad to start making any firm policy announcements more than a few months before May 2015. The other parties would be painting Labour as the irresponsible party, that could not be trusted to run the country again. Labour need to run a pretty bland campaign, with general themes and to deal with any negative campaigning by the Tories. The Tories will have much more money to spend and I expect Lynton Crosby to run a pretty dirty campaign. Expect the Tories to say that Labour covered up the mid-staffs hospital scandal, so cannot be trusted to look after the interests of NHS patients. I am expecting the dirtiest GE campaign that has ever been run.
For as long as I can remember the next GE will be the dirtiest campaign ever. It's just an overhyped cliche which never lives up to its billing.
I don't remember the Tories being that specific before the last GE. I may be wrong, but I remember talk of difficult choices without these ever being identified beyond undefined "savings". I am sure that plans to, say, raise VAT were specifically denied, while Labour was attacked for proposing to raise NI amounts. It was only after the election that the specifics started to be fleshed out.
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.
There's a difference between policy detail (which I agree has risks) and setting the narrative.
Not establishing the right narrative (and at the moment all Labour comes across as is opposing every cut - whether that is fair or not, that is what people are hearing) is risky. You either end up with a volte face 6 months before the election - and you can see what that did to the Tories last time round - or you end up winning the election and then either disappointing your supporters (like Hollande) or the market.
LOL Salmond now saying Scotland will host US military bases. Monarchist, NATO stalwart, keeping the pound ....wouldn't he just be safer joining the Conservatives ?
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.
But the writers quoted as saying this are not Tories.
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.
But the writers quoted as saying this are not Tories.
No (although I'm not sure why you think Rawnsley is pro-Labour?). But they're journalists. Parties unwilling to disclose policy detail are very frustrating for political journalists.
Where oppositions do get specific two years out they always run into difficult territory - "Are you saying this will definitely be in the 2015 manifesto regardless of circumstances then?" (If yes) Isn't that very dogmatic and reckless? (If no) So we can't rely on you actually doing it, it's just talk?
The Tories weren't specific before the GE of 2010 but merely warned of cuts. They categorically denied plans to take away the bus-passes for instance, but Labour were all over the local press in this part of the world saying it was guaranteed. So as well as the "horrible imaginings", there were added horrors invented by the opposition.
They might have been better spelling out some specifics rather than allow Labour to invent them.
Gordon, of course, stamped on the Badger when he tried to be honest.
Expect a dirty campaign from both of them this time.
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.
I'm not sure the issue is not going into policy detail, but more a matter of bring totally unable to engage with the issue at all.
I'm trying to find out whether Labour MPs elected in by-elections since 2010 are already considered to be selected for the next election...
The Rule Book 2010 says
Appendix III. Point B.14.
14.A candidate elected at a parliamentary by-election after the first 18 months of a Parliament shall not be subject to re-selection during the life of that Parliament.
I don't have a copy of Rule Book 2012 but I thought it was an issue desperately needed for a reform.
Can someone actually explain the maths of that to me? It strikes me as implausible.
It is the same old problem of debt and deficit. To benefit from the 5% tax cut to the tune of £100K you would not have to be a millionaire but to be earning in excess of £2m a year. As you will appreciate many "millionaires" in the south of England, with their wealth tied up in their house, are not even higher rate taxpayers, let alone recipients of this largesse.
The tories need to keep pointing out that the overall tax burden on the rich has gone up with every budget of the Coalition and it is frankly silly to look at one measure in isolation. Doesn't mean the cut was not a serious political mistake though as some of us said at the time.
"5% (the size of the cut) of £26.2 billion is £1.31 billion, so that's the total tax cut for all 13,000 income millionaires. The average additional rate tax cut per income millionaire therefore stands at £100,769. "
Thanks for that. I might just check with someone like David Boothroyd on VoteUK to see what he says. Sometimes the rule book says one thing and reality is different.
Thanks for that. I might just check with someone like David Boothroyd on VoteUK to see what he says. Sometimes the rule book says one thing and reality is different.
If so, you should check with somebody who has recently lived in a CLP with a by-election held after 18 months. Find someone who was a party member in Sedgefield, Ealing Southall, Glenrothes, Glasgow NE to check what they have done pre 2010.
Poor effort by UKIP in Warwickshire. Just 22 candidates out of 62. Same as TUSC. On another place, they say they are not very organized there, so their lack of candidates should not be surprising.
Can someone actually explain the maths of that to me? It strikes me as implausible.
It is the same old problem of debt and deficit. To benefit from the 5% tax cut to the tune of £100K you would not have to be a millionaire but to be earning in excess of £2m a year. As you will appreciate many "millionaires" in the south of England, with their wealth tied up in their house, are not even higher rate taxpayers, let alone recipients of this largesse.
The tories need to keep pointing out that the overall tax burden on the rich has gone up with every budget of the Coalition and it is frankly silly to look at one measure in isolation. Doesn't mean the cut was not a serious political mistake though as some of us said at the time.
Equally you could say that it is silly to look at the raising of the income tax threshold in isolation, when in terms of actual income many low earners have seen tax rises and benefits cuts so that overall they are actually worse off.
Poor effort by UKIP in Warwickshire. Just 22 candidates out of 62. Same as TUSC. On another place, they say they are not very organized there, so their lack of candidates should not be surprising.
It's a bit strange because the demographics of most of Warwickshire are pretty encouraging for UKIP, especially somewhere like Nuneaton and Bedworth, ie. a lot of voters who are neither well-off nor poor.
LOL Salmond now saying Scotland will host US military bases. Monarchist, NATO stalwart, keeping the pound ....wouldn't he just be safer joining the Conservatives ?
Alan, you are very cynical. Even more money flowing in as we host all those bases. Also means we can get good views of the stealth bombers etc, win:win for Salmond and will replace the 500 jobs lost when trident gets booted out.
Poor effort by UKIP in Warwickshire. Just 22 candidates out of 62. Same as TUSC. On another place, they say they are not very organized there, so their lack of candidates should not be surprising.
It's a bit strange because the demographics of most of Warwickshire are pretty encouraging for UKIP, especially somewhere like Nuneaton and Bedworth, ie. a lot of voters who are neither well-off nor poor.
I have seen quite a few UKIP posters around, so it is very strange they are not backing these up with candidates.
Poor effort by UKIP in Warwickshire. Just 22 candidates out of 62. Same as TUSC. On another place, they say they are not very organized there, so their lack of candidates should not be surprising.
It's a bit strange because the demographics of most of Warwickshire are pretty encouraging for UKIP, especially somewhere like Nuneaton and Bedworth, ie. a lot of voters who are neither well-off nor poor.
I have seen quite a few UKIP posters around, so it is very strange they are not backing these up with candidates.
They have a full slate in North Worwickshire. But just 1 candidate in Nneaton/Bedworth, 4 in Warwick, 3 in Rugby,
All this talk up-thread about how difficult it is to live on a small fixed budget rather ignores a very large group of people who have to do just that. There are a great many families with one or both parents in full time jobs who, after they have paid the bills, have to watch every penny, for whom saving is an impossibility and who are equally vulnerable to a sudden emergency like a boiler packing-up.
Yet I don't see posts let alone newspaper articles, bewailing the fate of that group and how tough life is for them. However, we may hear echoes of their frustration in the opinion polls that suggest a growing number are less sympathetic for those living entirely on benefits.
I'm baffled and bemused why we have no thread on Clegg on the piste:)
Exactly , relaxing at his 20 million holiday home , but you can be sure he is worrying about the poor and disadvantaged back in the UK, as he in it with them.
LOL Salmond now saying Scotland will host US military bases. Monarchist, NATO stalwart, keeping the pound ....wouldn't he just be safer joining the Conservatives ?
Alan, you are very cynical. Even more money flowing in as we host all those bases. Also means we can get good views of the stealth bombers etc, win:win for Salmond and will replace the 500 jobs lost when trident gets booted out.
Cynical ? Moi ?
No malc I'm just enjoying the slow shift of SNP guff to the cold hard realities of world politics. With any luck the EU "top table" crap will go next. The only way Salmond will see the top table is if he's serving biscuits to Mrs Merkel.
Poor effort by UKIP in Warwickshire. Just 22 candidates out of 62. Same as TUSC. On another place, they say they are not very organized there, so their lack of candidates should not be surprising.
It's a bit strange because the demographics of most of Warwickshire are pretty encouraging for UKIP, especially somewhere like Nuneaton and Bedworth, ie. a lot of voters who are neither well-off nor poor.
I have seen quite a few UKIP posters around, so it is very strange they are not backing these up with candidates.
They have a full slate in North Worwickshire. But just 1 candidate in Nneaton/Bedworth, 4 in Warwick, 3 in Rugby,
HS2 is planned to run through Warwickshire.
UKIP is the only party opposed to HS2 at National Level so opportunity knocks.
@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
I have gone for : On His Own Join Together Imperial Commander.
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 ?
Exactly Alan, I cannot work out how over 2 million foreigners can come here and walk into all the jobs whilst we have millions supposedly desperate to work. I went to Edinburgh zoo last week and in the restaurant there was not one local person working , all were eastern european. Kind of shows up what the problem is in this country, lots of whinging by lazy people who would rather take a handout than get out their beds and go and get a job. Happy to sponge off other people and not even ashamed to do it.
LOL Salmond now saying Scotland will host US military bases. Monarchist, NATO stalwart, keeping the pound ....wouldn't he just be safer joining the Conservatives ?
Alan, you are very cynical. Even more money flowing in as we host all those bases. Also means we can get good views of the stealth bombers etc, win:win for Salmond and will replace the 500 jobs lost when trident gets booted out.
Cynical ? Moi ?
No malc I'm just enjoying the slow shift of SNP guff to the cold hard realities of world politics. With any luck the EU "top table" crap will go next. The only way Salmond will see the top table is if he's serving biscuits to Mrs Merkel.
LOL, Alan I am looking forward to you eating humble pie post independence.
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 ?
Exactly Alan, I cannot work out how over 2 million foreigners can come here and walk into all the jobs whilst we have millions supposedly desperate to work. I went to Edinburgh zoo last week and in the restaurant there was not one local person working , all were eastern european. Kind of shows up what the problem is in this country, lots of whinging by lazy people who would rather take a handout than get out their beds and go and get a job. Happy to sponge off other people and not even ashamed to do it.
Same down here malc, I took the Mrs to the Cotswolds this week and loads of the staff in shops and restaurants were E Europeans. It really left me scratching my head as to why our own lot don't, or won't, work. Nothing against the E Europeans but why are locals not filling these jobs or being made to fill them ? Something stinks.
LOL Salmond now saying Scotland will host US military bases. Monarchist, NATO stalwart, keeping the pound ....wouldn't he just be safer joining the Conservatives ?
Alan, you are very cynical. Even more money flowing in as we host all those bases. Also means we can get good views of the stealth bombers etc, win:win for Salmond and will replace the 500 jobs lost when trident gets booted out.
Cynical ? Moi ?
No malc I'm just enjoying the slow shift of SNP guff to the cold hard realities of world politics. With any luck the EU "top table" crap will go next. The only way Salmond will see the top table is if he's serving biscuits to Mrs Merkel.
LOL, Alan I am looking forward to you eating humble pie post independence.
All this talk up-thread about how difficult it is to live on a small fixed budget rather ignores a very large group of people who have to do just that. There are a great many families with one or both parents in full time jobs who, after they have paid the bills, have to watch every penny, for whom saving is an impossibility and who are equally vulnerable to a sudden emergency like a boiler packing-up.
Yet I don't see posts let alone newspaper articles, bewailing the fate of that group and how tough life is for them. However, we may hear echoes of their frustration in the opinion polls that suggest a growing number are less sympathetic for those living entirely on benefits.
You can't have been concentrating. Scaling back on housing benefit, reducing tax credits, freezing child benefit payments, cutting services and so on all affect these familes.
For me it is the central challenge facing all political parties: how do you sustain a society in which only the elite get richer and more prosperous, while the bottom 50% see their living standards perpetually reduced and the other 40% see theirs stagnate. No-one seems to be addressing this, let alone providing any answers.
Once you have abolished welfare, or severely limtred it - what then?
500 jobs? Where on earth did you get that figure from, Mr. G.. There are a lot more than 500 locally employed civvies at the submarine base.
Hurst, you have been reading Labour propaganda. Employment will rise significantly when it is Scotland's navy base.
ps: Good afternoon to you.
Good afternoon to you, Mr.G.
Employment will rise when it is Scotland's navy base? Either you have started early today or you are just trying to wind me up. Just how big will Scotland's navy be that it will need 6,000 matelots and civvies to staff its base?
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 ?
Exactly Alan, I cannot work out how over 2 million foreigners can come here and walk into all the jobs whilst we have millions supposedly desperate to work. I went to Edinburgh zoo last week and in the restaurant there was not one local person working , all were eastern european. Kind of shows up what the problem is in this country, lots of whinging by lazy people who would rather take a handout than get out their beds and go and get a job. Happy to sponge off other people and not even ashamed to do it.
Same down here malc, I took the Mrs to the Cotswolds this week and loads of the staff in shops and restaurants were E Europeans. It really left me scratching my head as to why our own lot don't, or won't, work. Nothing against the E Europeans but why are locals not filling these jobs or being made to fill them ? Something stinks.
It is unbelievable Alan especially when you see the work ethic of the people as well, friendly , polite and doing the job well. welfare state has got us to the same position as Africa is re aid, kills peoples self respect and ambition to get up and do something for themselves.
All this talk up-thread about how difficult it is to live on a small fixed budget rather ignores a very large group of people who have to do just that. There are a great many families with one or both parents in full time jobs who, after they have paid the bills, have to watch every penny, for whom saving is an impossibility and who are equally vulnerable to a sudden emergency like a boiler packing-up.
Yet I don't see posts let alone newspaper articles, bewailing the fate of that group and how tough life is for them. However, we may hear echoes of their frustration in the opinion polls that suggest a growing number are less sympathetic for those living entirely on benefits.
You can't have been concentrating. Scaling back on housing benefit, reducing tax credits, freezing child benefit payments, cutting services and so on all affect these familes.
For me it is the central challenge facing all political parties: how do you sustain a society in which only the elite get richer and more prosperous, while the bottom 50% see their living standards perpetually reduced and the other 40% see theirs stagnate. No-one seems to be addressing this, let alone providing any answers.
Once you have abolished welfare, or severely limtred it - what then?
That depends on what you see as the role of welfare. If welfare is a temporary measure, then you get people back in to work and they earn a living and move on. If welfare is seen as a way of life everyone's screwed.
Time for a poster stating how many millionaires benefit from income tax cuts. The Coaltion ought to be able to sort out that rubbish from Labour. Lies, Damned Lies and Labour statistics another case of Labour isn't working.
500 jobs? Where on earth did you get that figure from, Mr. G.. There are a lot more than 500 locally employed civvies at the submarine base.
Hurst, you have been reading Labour propaganda. Employment will rise significantly when it is Scotland's navy base.
ps: Good afternoon to you.
Good afternoon to you, Mr.G.
Employment will rise when it is Scotland's navy base? Either you have started early today or you are just trying to wind me up. Just how big will Scotland's navy be that it will need 6,000 matelots and civvies to staff its base?
LOL, you have been reading their propaganda, last I saw the STUC had it just north of 4 figures. We will beat that even if we only have some rowing boats. Plus given we only get 50% benefit on what we pay in we will have squillions to play with. Between that and American bases we will be looking down our noses at our poor cousins down south with nothing but admirals and pen pushers, and aircraftless carriers parked in Southampton.
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 ?
Exactly Alan, I cannot work out how over 2 million foreigners can come here and walk into all the jobs whilst we have millions supposedly desperate to work. I went to Edinburgh zoo last week and in the restaurant there was not one local person working , all were eastern european. Kind of shows up what the problem is in this country, lots of whinging by lazy people who would rather take a handout than get out their beds and go and get a job. Happy to sponge off other people and not even ashamed to do it.
Same down here malc, I took the Mrs to the Cotswolds this week and loads of the staff in shops and restaurants were E Europeans. It really left me scratching my head as to why our own lot don't, or won't, work. Nothing against the E Europeans but why are locals not filling these jobs or being made to fill them ? Something stinks.
It is unbelievable Alan especially when you see the work ethic of the people as well, friendly , polite and doing the job well. welfare state has got us to the same position as Africa is re aid, kills peoples self respect and ambition to get up and do something for themselves.
I'm afraid there's a lot of truth in that. We have become a society where a chunk of the population believe they are entitled to things instead of having to work for them. Work brings dignity and self respect, yet I see few of the political parties pushing it as an agenda to get people back on their feet.
@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
I have gone for : On His Own Join Together Imperial Commander.
Not sure about Imperial Commander, Malc, but like the other two.
My non-National selections for the day will follow very soon.
Are Labour wanting to levy local income taxes on millionaires? Odd way to launch a local election campaign highlighting an issue over which councils have no control.
Perhaps it should be who wants to bang a millionaire...
@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
I have gone for : On His Own Join Together Imperial Commander.
Not sure about Imperial Commander, Malc, but like the other two.
My non-National selections for the day will follow very soon.
Peter, Yes I doubt he will do it at the weights but class may tell.
Mr. Brooke, that's true, and not just through welfare.
People's strange fondness for the cult of celebrity means they want instant and vacuous success. I don't want to sound like one of the Four Yorkshiremen, but when I were a lad kids still aspired to be astronauts, scientists and firemen. Now footballers and celebrities seem the order of the day.
People love the fruits of labour, but can't stand the work. It's the mentality of fifth century Rome. Or France.
All this talk up-thread about how difficult it is to live on a small fixed budget rather ignores a very large group of people who have to do just that. There are a great many families with one or both parents in full time jobs who, after they have paid the bills, have to watch every penny, for whom saving is an impossibility and who are equally vulnerable to a sudden emergency like a boiler packing-up.
Yet I don't see posts let alone newspaper articles, bewailing the fate of that group and how tough life is for them. However, we may hear echoes of their frustration in the opinion polls that suggest a growing number are less sympathetic for those living entirely on benefits.
You can't have been concentrating. Scaling back on housing benefit, reducing tax credits, freezing child benefit payments, cutting services and so on all affect these familes.
For me it is the central challenge facing all political parties: how do you sustain a society in which only the elite get richer and more prosperous, while the bottom 50% see their living standards perpetually reduced and the other 40% see theirs stagnate. No-one seems to be addressing this, let alone providing any answers.
Once you have abolished welfare, or severely limtred it - what then?
That depends on what you see as the role of welfare. If welfare is a temporary measure, then you get people back in to work and they earn a living and move on. If welfare is seen as a way of life everyone's screwed.
I agree, but I do not see any evidennce that welfare is a lifestyle choice for most of those who have to claim it. As we all know the biggest single item of welfare expenditure is pensions. Then there are those people who are restricted in the work they can do. Take your hotel and restaurant example: if you have a medical condition that precludes you from being on your feet for a lot of the time then you are going to find it tricky waiting at table or cleaning rooms, you'll need a different kind of job. Those do not just magically appear. Then if you are a hotel or restaurant you may well want to recruit people with some experience instead of someone just out of school who has never worked before, let alone worked at a reception desk or served meals to paying customers. And, as we have seen many times, quite a few employers actively by-pass the local jobs market to recruit overseas, so people do not know that jobs are available in the first place. Like it or not, a 35 year old bloke with a family to support is going to need a wage that a lot of employers are not willing to pay. Of course, you can take away his benefits and force him into a job that will not allow him to feed and house his family adequately, but that not only ends up ruining their lives, but also ends up costing taxpayers more - directly or indirectly - further down the line.
Not a good day yesterday but at recommended small stakes, not much damage done.
Another sensational day's racing in prospect. Mike very kindly allowed me to air my thoughts on the main event last nite. My thanks to all those who commented.
Here are the bets I am having today. I have gone quite strong on the Aintree selections; Lingfield and Wolverhampton bets are to more modest stakes.
Aintree: 1.45 Up And Go 15/8 2.50 Celestial Halo 8/1 5.10 Local Hero 20/1 Shotavodka 9/1 Changing Guard 12/1 Jumps Road 16/1
Lingfield: 2.25 Tepmokea 6/1 3.00 Hoarding 5/1 4.45 Harrison George 7/1
Wolverhampton: 9.20 Scamperdale 13/2
As on the previous two days, we have a 16 runner handicap (5.10 Aintree) where the place odds are particularly good. I have backed all four ew, and in combination forecasts and tricasts. This hasn't worked out well so far this meeting, but the principle is absolutely correct and if you keep betting with the odds in your favour, you must come out ahead eventually.
500 jobs? Where on earth did you get that figure from, Mr. G..
After an FoI request the MoD stated there were 520 civilian jobs in Scotland dependent on Trident.
'Mr Ainslie obtained figures for civilian jobs at Faslane under freedom of information legislation. They identify a total of 159 Ministry of Defence jobs in Scotland and 254 jobs at Babcock Marine as being dependent on Trident, as well as 107 jobs at Lockheed Martin UK Strategic Systems. The exact locations of the Lockheed Martin jobs were not available.'
Every division in the Lichfield council area has Con/Lab/LD/UKIP candidates except Burntwood South where there is no LD and an Independent candidate instead.
The Greens have disappeared which is interesting because they contested most of the divisions in 2009 and beat Labour in a number of them. In fact I voted Green in 2009 because I didn't like any of the other candidates:
Mr. Brooke, that's true, and not just through welfare.
People's strange fondness for the cult of celebrity means they want instant and vacuous success. I don't want to sound like one of the Four Yorkshiremen, but when I were a lad kids still aspired to be astronauts, scientists and firemen. Now footballers and celebrities seem the order of the day.
People love the fruits of labour, but can't stand the work. It's the mentality of fifth century Rome. Or France.
I once had an Finance guy in France who used to work up until he had qualified for full state benefits ( pretty generous in France ) then he'd go all out to get himself sacked and take the next year off before looking for another job. I was told he wasn't exactly alone in the approach.
Mr. Brooke, that's true, and not just through welfare.
People's strange fondness for the cult of celebrity means they want instant and vacuous success. I don't want to sound like one of the Four Yorkshiremen, but when I were a lad kids still aspired to be astronauts, scientists and firemen. Now footballers and celebrities seem the order of the day.
People love the fruits of labour, but can't stand the work. It's the mentality of fifth century Rome. Or France.
How many people?
I am 48 and I remember when I grew up everyone wanted to be a footballer and half the blokes I knew were in bands. You've less chance of being an astronaut than you have of being a professional sportsman, that is for sure!
500 jobs? Where on earth did you get that figure from, Mr. G.. There are a lot more than 500 locally employed civvies at the submarine base.
Hurst, you have been reading Labour propaganda. Employment will rise significantly when it is Scotland's navy base.
ps: Good afternoon to you.
Good afternoon to you, Mr.G.
Employment will rise when it is Scotland's navy base? Either you have started early today or you are just trying to wind me up. Just how big will Scotland's navy be that it will need 6,000 matelots and civvies to staff its base?
LOL, you have been reading their propaganda, last I saw the STUC had it just north of 4 figures. We will beat that even if we only have some rowing boats. Plus given we only get 50% benefit on what we pay in we will have squillions to play with. Between that and American bases we will be looking down our noses at our poor cousins down south with nothing but admirals and pen pushers, and aircraftless carriers parked in Southampton.
HMNB Clyde employs just over a thousand people? You have started early.
All this talk up-thread about how difficult it is to live on a small fixed budget rather ignores a very large group of people who have to do just that. There are a great many families with one or both parents in full time jobs who, after they have paid the bills, have to watch every penny, for whom saving is an impossibility and who are equally vulnerable to a sudden emergency like a boiler packing-up.
Yet I don't see posts let alone newspaper articles, bewailing the fate of that group and how tough life is for them. However, we may hear echoes of their frustration in the opinion polls that suggest a growing number are less sympathetic for those living entirely on benefits.
The people Labour don't give a sh!t about? That's why they don't feature in the fair and balanced BBC.
Talking to someone from down near Chichester where there are lots of labour-intensive market garden businesses, one issue is that the "locals" are now barred from employment because they don 't speak Polish. The gangers, who the farmers use to provide labour, are now almost exclusively from the large and growing Polish community in Bognor-Regis and they won't hire anyone from outside their own community. So no matter how hard the locals may want to work they can't get a look in. I am given to understand a similar situation has developed in Lincolnshire.
There is also an issue with reverse discrimination. So many articles have appeared that the young people of England are lazy and won't work hard it has become a "truth" and employers prefer to take on E. Europeans regardless of the talents and capacity for work the English youngster applying for a job has.
I am not saying that there is not a problem with some English youth being idle and feckless, simply that it is not as clear cut as some try to portray.
All this talk up-thread about how difficult it is to live on a small fixed budget rather ignores a very large group of people who have to do just that. There are a great many families with one or both parents in full time jobs who, after they have paid the bills, have to watch every penny, for whom saving is an impossibility and who are equally vulnerable to a sudden emergency like a boiler packing-up.
Yet I don't see posts let alone newspaper articles, bewailing the fate of that group and how tough life is for them. However, we may hear echoes of their frustration in the opinion polls that suggest a growing number are less sympathetic for those living entirely on benefits.
The people Labour don't give a sh!t about? That's why they don't feature in the fair and balanced BBC.
You do understand, don't you, that the changes to housing benefit, tax credit reductions, the VAT hike, child benefit freezes and everything else Labour is talking about actually affect working families more than any other group?
LOL Salmond now saying Scotland will host US military bases. Monarchist, NATO stalwart, keeping the pound ....wouldn't he just be safer joining the Conservatives ?
At my primary school in the fifties, we wanted to be scientists or doctors (well the boys did). But with virtually no telly, the celebrities were in the pictures or on the radio, and Billy Wright although respected, was no idol.
@HurstLama - reminds me of the story of the British-born bloke who enquired about employment prospects and was told it would be a bit of a problem because all the Health & Safety regs at the factory were written in Polish.
"If welfare is seen as a way of life everyone's screwed."
There certainly is a view among some on the political left that most of your income should be through government welfare and that employment earnings should be little more than 'pocket money'.
Its the viewpoint that everyone has welfare 'entitlements' but no entitlement to keep the 'fruits of your labour' which instead 'belongs' to the government less a portion which the government chooses to let the employee keep.
I don't know, because the article doesn't say, what the question was that produced those figures. However, we do know that the RNB Clyde provides employment for a lot more than just 520 civvies. The RN estimates 6,500 service and civvy jobs and if the RN leaves all those jobs would go with them as would the livelihood of many more people who depend on the spend of those 6,500 and the agencies that employ them.
Now, as Mr. G. knows, I am a great supporter of Scottish independence, but pretending that just 500 jobs would be lost if HMNB closes to be replaced by the centre for the Scottish Navy is dishonest and silly and Scots deserve better. Frankly, I think Mr. G. is just trying to wind me up.
All this talk up-thread about how difficult it is to live on a small fixed budget rather ignores a very large group of people who have to do just that. There are a great many families with one or both parents in full time jobs who, after they have paid the bills, have to watch every penny, for whom saving is an impossibility and who are equally vulnerable to a sudden emergency like a boiler packing-up.
Yet I don't see posts let alone newspaper articles, bewailing the fate of that group and how tough life is for them. However, we may hear echoes of their frustration in the opinion polls that suggest a growing number are less sympathetic for those living entirely on benefits.
You can't have been concentrating. Scaling back on housing benefit, reducing tax credits, freezing child benefit payments, cutting services and so on all affect these familes.
For me it is the central challenge facing all political parties: how do you sustain a society in which only the elite get richer and more prosperous, while the bottom 50% see their living standards perpetually reduced and the other 40% see theirs stagnate. No-one seems to be addressing this, let alone providing any answers.
Once you have abolished welfare, or severely limtred it - what then?
That depends on what you see as the role of welfare. If welfare is a temporary measure, then you get people back in to work and they earn a living and move on. If welfare is seen as a way of life everyone's screwed.
I agree, but I do not see any evidennce that welfare is a lifestyle choice for most of those who have to claim it. As we all know the biggest single item of welfare expenditure is pensions. Then there are those people who are restricted in the work they can do. Take your hotel and restaurant example: if you have a medical condition that precludes you from being on your feet for a lot of the time then you are going to find it tricky waiting at table or cleaning rooms, you'll need a different kind of job. Those do not just magically appear. Then if you are a hotel or restaurant you may well want to recruit people with some experience instead of someone just out of school who has never worked before, let alone worked at a reception desk or served meals to paying customers. And, as we have seen many times, quite a few employers actively by-pass the local jobs market to recruit overseas, so people do not know that jobs are available in the first place. Like it or not, a 35 year old bloke with a family to support is going to need a wage that a lot of employers are not willing to pay. Of course, you can take away his benefits and force him into a job that will not allow him to feed and house his family adequately, but that not only ends up ruining their lives, but also ends up costing taxpayers more - directly or indirectly - further down the line.
While I see where you're coming from, I think a lot of the job side has to do with attitude to getting back in to work. I've worked alongside people with disabilities who had the mentality to want to work and did much better than able bodied colleagues. As for getting people in to work, well we all have to start somewhere and it's nearly always not at the top. So I'm for getting people in to work and once they have the discipline of getting up, keeping time and getting paid, they usually have a decent CV which allows them to get promoted, earn a pay rise or find a better job elsewhere. This is about asking people to make the same efforts as the people who pay for their benefits. Most voters are prepared to support those who fall on hard times, as there but for the grace of God go I, but it's unreasonable to ask them to write a blank cheque imo.
Likewise with employers. I agree some take the easy way out and refuse to train their workforce. We need both a carrot and a stick for employers, to make it less risky to employ someone and to make it more difficult to recruit overseas. One of the reasons I oppose mass immigration is becasue I have seen too many companies discriminate against locals. If we had filled the jobs created in the last decade with home labour we would have unemployment under one million and higher base salaries in a tighter labour market. We would also have a higher level of productivity and base salaries as higher wage costs drive innovation and investment as companies are driven to more efficient ways of working.
At present no party is looking to tackle the labour market problem. The blues want to re-pedal 1980s free market ideas which have been made obsolete since 1989 and the gradual opening of the world economy, the Reds want to re-pedal votes for avoiding the hard questions and the yellows have Vince Cable ballroom dancer. But until we address getting people back to work we are condemned to debating how many bedrooms you can have while political spinners pretend they're all doing something.
With job prospects, you're not comparing like with like. If an employer has to choose between a young British worker with a few months on the dole behind him (and no one's suggesting he was at fault) and a young Pole who's moved countries to find a job, is frighteningly keen to start, may be a little over-qualified but won't take time off unless he's near dead, then who's going to be favourite?
All this talk up-thread about how difficult it is to live on a small fixed budget rather ignores a very large group of people who have to do just that. There are a great many families with one or both parents in full time jobs who, after they have paid the bills, have to watch every penny, for whom saving is an impossibility and who are equally vulnerable to a sudden emergency like a boiler packing-up.
Yet I don't see posts let alone newspaper articles, bewailing the fate of that group and how tough life is for them. However, we may hear echoes of their frustration in the opinion polls that suggest a growing number are less sympathetic for those living entirely on benefits.
You can't have been concentrating. Scaling back on housing benefit, reducing tax credits, freezing child benefit payments, cutting services and so on all affect these familes.
For me it is the central challenge facing all political parties: how do you sustain a society in which only the elite get richer and more prosperous, while the bottom 50% see their living standards perpetually reduced and the other 40% see theirs stagnate. No-one seems to be addressing this, let alone providing any answers.
Once you have abolished welfare, or severely limtred it - what then?
What I find so depressing is the lack of original thought from the political overclass (makes you wonder what they teach on those Oxford PPE courses?) – a consequence of its London based view of the world perhaps?
Talking to someone from down near Chichester where there are lots of labour-intensive market garden businesses, one issue is that the "locals" are now barred from employment because they don 't speak Polish. The gangers, who the farmers use to provide labour, are now almost exclusively from the large and growing Polish community in Bognor-Regis and they won't hire anyone from outside their own community. So no matter how hard the locals may want to work they can't get a look in. I am given to understand a similar situation has developed in Lincolnshire.
There is also an issue with reverse discrimination. So many articles have appeared that the young people of England are lazy and won't work hard it has become a "truth" and employers prefer to take on E. Europeans regardless of the talents and capacity for work the English youngster applying for a job has.
I am not saying that there is not a problem with some English youth being idle and feckless, simply that it is not as clear cut as some try to portray.
I don't think this is just an isolated problem I believe it's pretty similar in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. Usually this is the kind of issue lefties like to claim is Daily Mail hype and racism, but I've seen enough examples myself in industry where employers are dioscriminating against their own people. Basically such employers should be fined out of business imo but that's not a popular view I accept.
I first wrote this a few years ago, I think its ever more true:
Personally speaking I think we need more of an emphasis on quality of life issues rather than simply living standards.
Traditionally political parties have promised to make voters richer. The Conservatives, roughly speaking, through the medium of tax cuts and aiming at the ‘rich’ and private sector while Labour, roughly speaking, promising spending increases and aiming at the ‘poor’ and public sector.
It seems that without some major technological breakthroughs that this approach has now reached a dead end and that we will have to look for other methods to improve our quality of life. For example has all that extra consumer spending (on imported goods) brought as much satisfaction as having more free time would have done?
This is one reason I oppose continued net immigration. Whatever the economic arguments for it are (and which I am sceptical about) I think an increasing population has strong negative effects in areas such as housing, transport and the environment.
"Traditionally political parties have promised to make voters richer. The Conservatives, roughly speaking, through the medium of tax cuts and aiming at the ‘rich’ and private sector while Labour, roughly speaking, promising spending increases and aiming at the ‘poor’ and public sector."
and oddly neither of them push getting richer by working, the single most important factor in lifting most of Asia out of poverty. UK politics is just mired in get rich quick schemes.
Talking to someone from down near Chichester where there are lots of labour-intensive market garden businesses, one issue is that the "locals" are now barred from employment because they don 't speak Polish. The gangers, who the farmers use to provide labour, are now almost exclusively from the large and growing Polish community in Bognor-Regis and they won't hire anyone from outside their own community. So no matter how hard the locals may want to work they can't get a look in. I am given to understand a similar situation has developed in Lincolnshire.
There is also an issue with reverse discrimination. So many articles have appeared that the young people of England are lazy and won't work hard it has become a "truth" and employers prefer to take on E. Europeans regardless of the talents and capacity for work the English youngster applying for a job has.
I am not saying that there is not a problem with some English youth being idle and feckless, simply that it is not as clear cut as some try to portray.
I don't think this is just an isolated problem I believe it's pretty similar in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. Usually this is the kind of issue lefties like to claim is Daily Mail hype and racism, but I've seen enough examples myself in industry where employers are dioscriminating against their own people. Basically such employers should be fined out of business imo but that's not a popular view I accept.
It definitely isn't hype, we even have our own example on this site. Max, gent of this parish, confessed a couple of years back on here that his company run a racist recruitment policy -discriminating against British graduates.
How to solve the problem I am not sure, but getting out of the EU would seem to be a prerequisite.
All this talk up-thread about how difficult it is to live on a small fixed budget rather ignores a very large group of people who have to do just that. There are a great many families with one or both parents in full time jobs who, after they have paid the bills, have to watch every penny, for whom saving is an impossibility and who are equally vulnerable to a sudden emergency like a boiler packing-up.
Yet I don't see posts let alone newspaper articles, bewailing the fate of that group and how tough life is for them. However, we may hear echoes of their frustration in the opinion polls that suggest a growing number are less sympathetic for those living entirely on benefits.
You can't have been concentrating. Scaling back on housing benefit, reducing tax credits, freezing child benefit payments, cutting services and so on all affect these familes.
For me it is the central challenge facing all political parties: how do you sustain a society in which only the elite get richer and more prosperous, while the bottom 50% see their living standards perpetually reduced and the other 40% see theirs stagnate. No-one seems to be addressing this, let alone providing any answers.
Once you have abolished welfare, or severely limtred it - what then?
What I find so depressing is the lack of original thought from the political overclass (makes you wonder what they teach on those Oxford PPE courses?) – a consequence of its London based view of the world perhaps?
I really don't thnk they see the problem. There is so little thinking about the real consequences of the crash. A society is not sustainable if most of those living in it do not see that they have a stake in its continued functioning. And how can you have a stake if your standard of living keeps falling or stagnating - as seems likely to be the case with a great chunk of the population, whether they are in work or not.
I really don't know what the answers are - I suspect some of it is what you say above about finding new ways of being contented, though that will take time; there is also a large element of truth in what AlanBrooke says about determination in some parts of the local workforce, crap employers and immigration, and people like you and him are absolutely right to blame Labour for its many failings here; but I also believe that we are still going to need a level of redistribution too - without it the gap between the minority haves and the majority of have nots will continue to widen, and in the end consequences of that could be very unpleasant indeed.
Talking to someone from down near Chichester where there are lots of labour-intensive market garden businesses, one issue is that the "locals" are now barred from employment because they don 't speak Polish. The gangers, who the farmers use to provide labour, are now almost exclusively from the large and growing Polish community in Bognor-Regis and they won't hire anyone from outside their own community. So no matter how hard the locals may want to work they can't get a look in. I am given to understand a similar situation has developed in Lincolnshire.
There is also an issue with reverse discrimination. So many articles have appeared that the young people of England are lazy and won't work hard it has become a "truth" and employers prefer to take on E. Europeans regardless of the talents and capacity for work the English youngster applying for a job has.
I am not saying that there is not a problem with some English youth being idle and feckless, simply that it is not as clear cut as some try to portray.
I don't think this is just an isolated problem I believe it's pretty similar in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. Usually this is the kind of issue lefties like to claim is Daily Mail hype and racism, but I've seen enough examples myself in industry where employers are dioscriminating against their own people. Basically such employers should be fined out of business imo but that's not a popular view I accept.
It definitely isn't hype, we even have our own example on this site. Max, gent of this parish, confessed a couple of years back on here that his company run a racist recruitment policy -discriminating against British graduates.
How to solve the problem I am not sure, but getting out of the EU would seem to be a prerequisite.
Personally I'd hit the company with the full bill for an unemployed person's benefits since in effect that's what's happening but they're leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab.
@SouthamObserver - in fairness, Cameron does talk about the global race - whether the government actually has a coherent plan to tackle the challenges is a lot less clear - but it's behind the worries about global education ranking for example.
@SouthamObserver - in fairness, Cameron does talk about the global race - whether the government actually has a coherent plan to tackle the challenges is a lot less clear - but it's behind the worries about global education ranking for example.
CV you used "Cameron" and "coherent plan" in the same sentence - just surreal !
I don't think we WILL have a minimum wage by 2020 - or at least not one significantly above £6/hr.
It's yet another of those well-intentioned Socialist ideas which has the precise opposite efect to that intended. a) It has made young British workers unemployable, since E Europeans will work harder and do dirtier and more tedious jobs than British youth, so the same money. b) Since you can no longer pay someone a pittance whilst they are training/doing an apprenticeship, it becomes much more cost-effective to employ a trained worker (for virtually the same money) than employ an apprentice c) The wage may be low by UK standards, but it's very generous indeed if you come from E Europe (etc) so you price British workers out and have them replaced by immigrants who will arbitrage the exchange rate to send a decent sum back home each month d) The wages of employees in what should have been the £7-£10/hr area have all been dragged down to the min wage (£6/hr), since their skills do not justify paying them up to 67% more. e) The whole raft of 'employers' subsidies' in the form of various Working Family Tax Credits (etc etc etc) are a direct consequence of driving down UK wages through open-door immigration: if you raise the min wage to £10/hr much of that tax subsidy goes (and the tax take is higher) but you exacerbate the low/medium skilled employment problem.
There's only one possible solution - abolish the min wage and let employers and employees agree a rate for the job: no-one would work for £1/hr, so I don't see what the problem is.
Oh - and I'd scrap any and all benefits for those with at least one member of the household in full-time employment: it is not the duty of the State to subsidise at vast expense low-wage employers (as now).
Not popular, but when you need to save tens of billions each year, you cannot afford to be kind: raising the pension age is so blindingly obvious (back to 80) that only the current Coalition could be so stupid as not to implement it. Not in 2014/15, of course - but say enacted to be in place by 2030, so that it can be brought forward (in stages) to be fully in place by 2025, by whoever is in Govt after the next GE.
Then we might, just might, be on course for a 'balanced Budget' by 2020.
I agree, but I do not see any evidennce that welfare is a lifestyle choice for most of those who have to claim it. As we all know the biggest single item of welfare expenditure is pensions.
I doubt that many PB tories (cheering on the nasty party fatuously linking a child killer to welfare) do actually know.
How long till the nasty party start attacking the elderly as 'scroungers'?
Comments
What makes this even more politically attractive than usual is that there's a strong possibility that things like the Universal Credit will actually involve a lot of serious administrative problems.
"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."
Agree Labour would be mad to start making any firm policy announcements more than a few months before May 2015. The other parties would be painting Labour as the irresponsible party, that could not be trusted to run the country again. Labour need to run a pretty bland campaign, with general themes and to deal with any negative campaigning by the Tories. The Tories will have much more money to spend and I expect Lynton Crosby to run a pretty dirty campaign. Expect the Tories to say that Labour covered up the mid-staffs hospital scandal, so cannot be trusted to look after the interests of NHS patients. I am expecting the dirtiest GE campaign that has ever been run.
"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."
Agree Labour would be mad to start making any firm policy announcements more than a few months before May 2015. The other parties would be painting Labour as the irresponsible party, that could not be trusted to run the country again. Labour need to run a pretty bland campaign, with general themes and to deal with any negative campaigning by the Tories. The Tories will have much more money to spend and I expect Lynton Crosby to run a pretty dirty campaign. Expect the Tories to say that Labour covered up the mid-staffs hospital scandal, so cannot be trusted to look after the interests of NHS patients. I am expecting the dirtiest GE campaign that has ever been run.
For as long as I can remember the next GE will be the dirtiest campaign ever. It's just an overhyped cliche which never lives up to its billing.
Aspiring journalist making documentary about homeless in Newcastle dies from hypothermia 3 days into the project:
http://news.sky.com/story/1074477/man-dies-making-documentary-about-homeless
Not establishing the right narrative (and at the moment all Labour comes across as is opposing every cut - whether that is fair or not, that is what people are hearing) is risky. You either end up with a volte face 6 months before the election - and you can see what that did to the Tories last time round - or you end up winning the election and then either disappointing your supporters (like Hollande) or the market.
LOL Salmond now saying Scotland will host US military bases. Monarchist, NATO stalwart, keeping the pound ....wouldn't he just be safer joining the Conservatives ?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-snp-open-to-us-military-bases-1-2880426
http://bit.ly/Xb3122
I'm trying to find out whether Labour MPs elected in by-elections since 2010 are already considered to be selected for the next election...
Italian media reported that four Italian reporters were taken hostage in northern Syria, near the Turkish border."
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/syria-153
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/320473445299286017/photo/1
Where oppositions do get specific two years out they always run into difficult territory - "Are you saying this will definitely be in the 2015 manifesto regardless of circumstances then?" (If yes) Isn't that very dogmatic and reckless? (If no) So we can't rely on you actually doing it, it's just talk?
The Tories weren't specific before the GE of 2010 but merely warned of cuts. They categorically denied plans to take away the bus-passes for instance, but Labour were all over the local press in this part of the world saying it was guaranteed. So as well as the "horrible imaginings", there were added horrors invented by the opposition.
They might have been better spelling out some specifics rather than allow Labour to invent them.
Gordon, of course, stamped on the Badger when he tried to be honest.
Expect a dirty campaign from both of them this time.
Appendix III. Point B.14.
14.A candidate elected at a parliamentary by-election after the first 18 months of a Parliament
shall not be subject to re-selection during the life of that Parliament.
I don't have a copy of Rule Book 2012 but I thought it was an issue desperately needed for a reform.
The tories need to keep pointing out that the overall tax burden on the rich has gone up with every budget of the Coalition and it is frankly silly to look at one measure in isolation. Doesn't mean the cut was not a serious political mistake though as some of us said at the time.
Thanks for that. I might just check with someone like David Boothroyd on VoteUK to see what he says. Sometimes the rule book says one thing and reality is different.
Did you see the news from Standard and Poor's yesterday?
Teaforthree however has a decent chance. ;-)
They have a full slate in North Worwickshire. But just 1 candidate in Nneaton/Bedworth, 4 in Warwick, 3 in Rugby,
Yet I don't see posts let alone newspaper articles, bewailing the fate of that group and how tough life is for them. However, we may hear echoes of their frustration in the opinion polls that suggest a growing number are less sympathetic for those living entirely on benefits.
No malc I'm just enjoying the slow shift of SNP guff to the cold hard realities of world politics. With any luck the EU "top table" crap will go next. The only way Salmond will see the top table is if he's serving biscuits to Mrs Merkel.
"... 500 jobs lost when trident gets booted out"
500 jobs? Where on earth did you get that figure from, Mr. G.. There are a lot more than 500 locally employed civvies at the submarine base.
HS2 is planned to run through Warwickshire.
UKIP is the only party opposed to HS2 at National Level so opportunity knocks.
On His Own
Join Together
Imperial Commander.
ps: Good afternoon to you.
For me it is the central challenge facing all political parties: how do you sustain a society in which only the elite get richer and more prosperous, while the bottom 50% see their living standards perpetually reduced and the other 40% see theirs stagnate. No-one seems to be addressing this, let alone providing any answers.
Once you have abolished welfare, or severely limtred it - what then?
Employment will rise when it is Scotland's navy base? Either you have started early today or you are just trying to wind me up. Just how big will Scotland's navy be that it will need 6,000 matelots and civvies to staff its base?
welfare state has got us to the same position as Africa is re aid, kills peoples self respect and ambition to get up and do something for themselves.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-statistics.htm
Great day for someone to dig out statistics, unfortunately I have to dig a garden.
Between that and American bases we will be looking down our noses at our poor cousins down south with nothing but admirals and pen pushers, and aircraftless carriers parked in Southampton.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/html/region_99999.stm
My non-National selections for the day will follow very soon.
Perhaps it should be who wants to bang a millionaire...
People's strange fondness for the cult of celebrity means they want instant and vacuous success. I don't want to sound like one of the Four Yorkshiremen, but when I were a lad kids still aspired to be astronauts, scientists and firemen. Now footballers and celebrities seem the order of the day.
People love the fruits of labour, but can't stand the work. It's the mentality of fifth century Rome. Or France.
Not a good day yesterday but at recommended small stakes, not much damage done.
Another sensational day's racing in prospect. Mike very kindly allowed me to air my thoughts on the main event last nite. My thanks to all those who commented.
Here are the bets I am having today. I have gone quite strong on the Aintree selections; Lingfield and Wolverhampton bets are to more modest stakes.
Aintree:
1.45 Up And Go 15/8
2.50 Celestial Halo 8/1
5.10 Local Hero 20/1
Shotavodka 9/1
Changing Guard 12/1
Jumps Road 16/1
Lingfield:
2.25 Tepmokea 6/1
3.00 Hoarding 5/1
4.45 Harrison George 7/1
Wolverhampton:
9.20 Scamperdale 13/2
As on the previous two days, we have a 16 runner handicap (5.10 Aintree) where the place odds are particularly good. I have backed all four ew, and in combination forecasts and tricasts. This hasn't worked out well so far this meeting, but the principle is absolutely correct and if you keep betting with the odds in your favour, you must come out ahead eventually.
Let's hope it's today.
http://www.espn.co.uk/mercedes/motorsport/story/104847.html
Said it before, but given the choice between backing Brawn or Lauda I'd go for Brawn every time.
'Mr Ainslie obtained figures for civilian jobs at Faslane under freedom of information legislation. They identify a total of 159 Ministry of Defence jobs in Scotland and 254 jobs at Babcock Marine as being dependent on Trident, as well as 107 jobs at Lockheed Martin UK Strategic Systems. The exact locations of the Lockheed Martin jobs were not available.'
http://tinyurl.com/brugaqv
The Greens have disappeared which is interesting because they contested most of the divisions in 2009 and beat Labour in a number of them. In fact I voted Green in 2009 because I didn't like any of the other candidates:
http://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/5080/statement_of_persons_nominated_all_divisions
I am 48 and I remember when I grew up everyone wanted to be a footballer and half the blokes I knew were in bands. You've less chance of being an astronaut than you have of being a professional sportsman, that is for sure!
Talking to someone from down near Chichester where there are lots of labour-intensive market garden businesses, one issue is that the "locals" are now barred from employment because they don 't speak Polish. The gangers, who the farmers use to provide labour, are now almost exclusively from the large and growing Polish community in Bognor-Regis and they won't hire anyone from outside their own community. So no matter how hard the locals may want to work they can't get a look in. I am given to understand a similar situation has developed in Lincolnshire.
There is also an issue with reverse discrimination. So many articles have appeared that the young people of England are lazy and won't work hard it has become a "truth" and employers prefer to take on E. Europeans regardless of the talents and capacity for work the English youngster applying for a job has.
I am not saying that there is not a problem with some English youth being idle and feckless, simply that it is not as clear cut as some try to portray.
SO and Mr Dancer,
At my primary school in the fifties, we wanted to be scientists or doctors (well the boys did). But with virtually no telly, the celebrities were in the pictures or on the radio, and Billy Wright although respected, was no idol.
But we wuz 'appy in our mud 'uts
There certainly is a view among some on the political left that most of your income should be through government welfare and that employment earnings should be little more than 'pocket money'.
Its the viewpoint that everyone has welfare 'entitlements' but no entitlement to keep the 'fruits of your labour' which instead 'belongs' to the government less a portion which the government chooses to let the employee keep.
I don't know, because the article doesn't say, what the question was that produced those figures. However, we do know that the RNB Clyde provides employment for a lot more than just 520 civvies. The RN estimates 6,500 service and civvy jobs and if the RN leaves all those jobs would go with them as would the livelihood of many more people who depend on the spend of those 6,500 and the agencies that employ them.
Now, as Mr. G. knows, I am a great supporter of Scottish independence, but pretending that just 500 jobs would be lost if HMNB closes to be replaced by the centre for the Scottish Navy is dishonest and silly and Scots deserve better. Frankly, I think Mr. G. is just trying to wind me up.
Likewise with employers. I agree some take the easy way out and refuse to train their workforce. We need both a carrot and a stick for employers, to make it less risky to employ someone and to make it more difficult to recruit overseas. One of the reasons I oppose mass immigration is becasue I have seen too many companies discriminate against locals. If we had filled the jobs created in the last decade with home labour we would have unemployment under one million and higher base salaries in a tighter labour market. We would also have a higher level of productivity and base salaries as higher wage costs drive innovation and investment as companies are driven to more efficient ways of working.
At present no party is looking to tackle the labour market problem. The blues want to re-pedal 1980s free market ideas which have been made obsolete since 1989 and the gradual opening of the world economy, the Reds want to re-pedal votes for avoiding the hard questions and the yellows have Vince Cable ballroom dancer. But until we address getting people back to work we are condemned to debating how many bedrooms you can have while political spinners pretend they're all doing something.
With job prospects, you're not comparing like with like. If an employer has to choose between a young British worker with a few months on the dole behind him (and no one's suggesting he was at fault) and a young Pole who's moved countries to find a job, is frighteningly keen to start, may be a little over-qualified but won't take time off unless he's near dead, then who's going to be favourite?
Labour ... looking after the employers as usual.
Personally speaking I think we need more of an emphasis on quality of life issues rather than simply living standards.
Traditionally political parties have promised to make voters richer. The Conservatives, roughly speaking, through the medium of tax cuts and aiming at the ‘rich’ and private sector while Labour, roughly speaking, promising spending increases and aiming at the ‘poor’ and public sector.
It seems that without some major technological breakthroughs that this approach has now reached a dead end and that we will have to look for other methods to improve our quality of life. For example has all that extra consumer spending (on imported goods) brought as much satisfaction as having more free time would have done?
This is one reason I oppose continued net immigration. Whatever the economic arguments for it are (and which I am sceptical about) I think an increasing population has strong negative effects in areas such as housing, transport and the environment.
"Traditionally political parties have promised to make voters richer. The Conservatives, roughly speaking, through the medium of tax cuts and aiming at the ‘rich’ and private sector while Labour, roughly speaking, promising spending increases and aiming at the ‘poor’ and public sector."
and oddly neither of them push getting richer by working, the single most important factor in lifting most of Asia out of poverty. UK politics is just mired in get rich quick schemes.
How to solve the problem I am not sure, but getting out of the EU would seem to be a prerequisite.
I really don't know what the answers are - I suspect some of it is what you say above about finding new ways of being contented, though that will take time; there is also a large element of truth in what AlanBrooke says about determination in some parts of the local workforce, crap employers and immigration, and people like you and him are absolutely right to blame Labour for its many failings here; but I also believe that we are still going to need a level of redistribution too - without it the gap between the minority haves and the majority of have nots will continue to widen, and in the end consequences of that could be very unpleasant indeed.
I don't think we WILL have a minimum wage by 2020 - or at least not one significantly above £6/hr.
It's yet another of those well-intentioned Socialist ideas which has the precise opposite efect to that intended.
a) It has made young British workers unemployable, since E Europeans will work harder and do dirtier and more tedious jobs than British youth, so the same money.
b) Since you can no longer pay someone a pittance whilst they are training/doing an apprenticeship, it becomes much more cost-effective to employ a trained worker (for virtually the same money) than employ an apprentice
c) The wage may be low by UK standards, but it's very generous indeed if you come from E Europe (etc) so you price British workers out and have them replaced by immigrants who will arbitrage the exchange rate to send a decent sum back home each month
d) The wages of employees in what should have been the £7-£10/hr area have all been dragged down to the min wage (£6/hr), since their skills do not justify paying them up to 67% more.
e) The whole raft of 'employers' subsidies' in the form of various Working Family Tax Credits (etc etc etc) are a direct consequence of driving down UK wages through open-door immigration: if you raise the min wage to £10/hr much of that tax subsidy goes (and the tax take is higher) but you exacerbate the low/medium skilled employment problem.
There's only one possible solution - abolish the min wage and let employers and employees agree a rate for the job: no-one would work for £1/hr, so I don't see what the problem is.
Oh - and I'd scrap any and all benefits for those with at least one member of the household in full-time employment: it is not the duty of the State to subsidise at vast expense low-wage employers (as now).
Not popular, but when you need to save tens of billions each year, you cannot afford to be kind: raising the pension age is so blindingly obvious (back to 80) that only the current Coalition could be so stupid as not to implement it. Not in 2014/15, of course - but say enacted to be in place by 2030, so that it can be brought forward (in stages) to be fully in place by 2025, by whoever is in Govt after the next GE.
Then we might, just might, be on course for a 'balanced Budget' by 2020.
How long till the nasty party start attacking the elderly as 'scroungers'?