A radical shakeup of the welfare state, under which benefit payments to those out of work or on low incomes would vary according to their past contributions to the state, is being considered by the Labour party.
As Ed Miliband's party seeks to counter Tory claims that it is soft on welfare, the Observer understands that detailed work is under way in the party's policy review on how to revolutionise the way the system works and address concerns that it promotes a "something-for-nothing" culture.
One central idea under consideration is the creation of a flexible payments system offering higher benefits to those who have been employed for longer and have therefore made more national insurance contributions.
"In the period before Lisa Willis left, on at least three occasions you asked Mairead Philpott to agree to a divorce so that you could marry Lisa. Apparently you expected Mairead to remain in the house with the children just as before. Mairead Philpott refused. I shall return to that later.
"In February of last year Lisa Willis left you, taking her children with her. She did not dare tell you she was leaving. She told Mairead Philpott that she was taking her children swimming.
"She and the children left with the clothes they stood up in and their swimming things. You soon realised what had happened and you set about trying to bring her back.
"The evidence shows that you tried sweet-talking her. You tried cajoling and then bullying her. Sometimes you moved between the three tactics. She would not come back. You could not stand the fact that she had crossed you. You were determined to make sure that she came back and you began to put together your plan."
"Before I turn to what you did next, it is necessary to look at the history of your relationships with other women.
"The first with which I am concerned was a relationship with a girl in her teens. You were in your 20s. The relationship was characterised by violence - there were repeated beatings.
"On one occasion you broke her arm, on another you dislocated her knee with a sledgehammer. You were sure that she was having affairs and would come back from your posting in the army to check on her, repeatedly. Eventually she summoned the courage to bring your relationship to an end. You did not accept her decision.
"You broke into her house, armed yourself with a knife and went to her bedroom where you stabbed her repeatedly in a ferocious attack which left her with life-threatening injuries from which she has never fully recovered.
"You intended, as a jury were later to find, to kill her. When her mother intervened you turned on her. You stabbed her repeatedly in a further vicious attack and you caused her serious injuries.
"You were convicted of attempted murder and wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act. You have, I am rightly reminded, served your sentence for that but it is clear from the evidence that I excluded from the trial that you have repeatedly used that conviction as a means of controlling other women, terrifying them as to what you might do to them if they did not follow your will.
"When you came out of prison you married your first wife. Three children were born. You subjected your wife to physical violence throughout your relationship.
"She never reported anything to the police. She was too afraid to do so. She knew of your past. She believed she could not leave you."
Also, the Labour plan sounds like it may mean higher spending. The alternative is cutting benefits for the unemployed, which would be interesting from a party that opposed a £26k benefit cap.
Also, the Labour plan sounds like it may mean higher spending. The alternative is cutting benefits for the unemployed, which would be interesting from a party that opposed a £26k benefit cap.
'One central idea under consideration is the creation of a flexible payments system offering higher benefits to those who have been employed for longer and have therefore made more national insurance contributions.'
So even higher spending by Labour on benefits,what a surprise.
@TheScreamingEagles For a party without any MPs to talk about how they'd operate in a coalition is a tad presumptuous.
But all the more hilarious for it. Even despite Cammie and Osbrowne's master strategy to bang on about the EU and immigration there is a notable absence of tory MPs defecting to the Kippers. Eastleigh served to show an inability to win an MP when the circumstances were hugely favourable. Galloway managed to turn a protest vote into a win, Farage did not.
When Cammie sets Crosby on Farage (as he most assuredly will since nothing else has worked) I have my doubts whether the way Farage runs the Kippers will stand up to the kind of 'scrutiny' Crosby will be feeding some of the papers. We shall see.
The other point which must be emphasised about the Philpott case is that it was not for the trial judge to determine the facts of the case. That was the task of the jury. It was the Crown's case, per Mr Latham QC, that "Michael Philpott did not want to work. He just wanted a house full of kids and the benefit money that brings". It was also the Crown's case that Ms Willis "had stood up to him, he was no longer in control and that was absolutely unacceptable to him." The Crown suggested that Mr Philpott's motivation was multifaceted. The jury accepted the Crown's version of events by their return of verdicts of guilty of manslaughter to six counts of the indictment.
It was not for the judge to trespass on the province of the jury, and her sentencing remarks cannot be interpreted in a manner that does so. Thirwall J's stress on Mr Philpott's previous abusive relationships, and in particular his conviction for attempted murder and s. 18 were necessary because the court had to determine whether Philpott was sufficiently dangerous that only an indeterminate sentence was merited. Thirwall J held that that was indeed the case.
@NickPalmer "The main interest in South Shields is to see if they do the same to us in a safe Labour seat - perhaps with a following wind after the County election."
I do believe you are getting a soft spot for Ukip, Nick. You are aways welcome to join us.
Gosh, thanks. :-) I try to be objective about trends. But it's true that I've not disliked most of the UKIP candidates and activists that I've met, even though we don't agree on anything that I can think of. The guy in Broxtowe was an affable buffer, and his most prominent supporter wa a magnificently indomitable 96-year-old who had recently done a parachute jump for charity. Even though I think UKIP does appeal to some homeless BNP voters, the candidates and activists are very different - I've rarely met a BNP activist who didn't live down to their thuggish reputation.
It doesn't hurt that I think you're making a Tory re-election even more unlikely!
Ah Nick, I don't want a tory victory any more than I want a labour victory, or in fact another coalition of any stripe. I want a Ukip government to be established in Britain or what remains of it after the Scottish referendum.
The three main parties that we have at present have ruined Britain. Since WW2 we have lost most of our old industries, without replacing them with new ones. We have gorged on debt and made us all but bankrupt where it counts most in the peoples well-being. The main parties have also made us almost defenceless against current and future enemies.
Britain still insists it is one of the leading powers in the world but without our own fuels tap, oil,gas, coal or nuclear we are in anybodies power should they try to squeeze us on our present weakness. We are in thrall to an increasingly undemocratic EU, ordered about by a growing bunch of autocrats from Brussels.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Vote UKIP for a restoration of government of the people for the people by the people.
Mr. Antifrank, it depends how they're doing it though.
If it's cutting benefits then that's an utter volte-face and contrary to everything they've said and how they've voted. If they're now proposing more money for some then that's more consistent but it also means wanting more spending, which is a very French way to go.
Mr. Antifrank, it depends how they're doing it though.
If it's cutting benefits then that's an utter volte-face and contrary to everything they've said and how they've voted. If they're now proposing more money for some then that's more consistent but it also means wanting more spending, which is a very French way to go.
They appear to be saying Millionaires (like Ed) who pay the highest taxes should get the most benefits
'Under its plans, no one would be able to remain unemployed for more than two years, reduced to a year for a young person. After that, they would be offered a real job with appropriate training funded by the taxing of bankers' bonuses and restructuring pension tax relief for the wealthiest. If they fail to take the job they would be stripped of benefits.'
So taxes on bankers bonuses are going to be used to pay for fake jobs for 2.5 million unemployed people in addition to a social house building program.
Must be a massive new tax as the EU has now dramatically reduced the size of bankers bonus's. And if the banks start to move offshore the tax gets even higher,the 1970's revisited.
But all the more hilarious for it. Even despite Cammie and Osbrowne's master strategy to bang on about the EU and immigration there is a notable absence of tory MPs defecting to the Kippers. Eastleigh served to show an inability to win an MP when the circumstances were hugely favourable. Galloway managed to turn a protest vote into a win, Farage did not.
On immigration, plausibly the Tory line is to bang on. But on Europe, I think most likely not. I think the Tories have realised that it is a subject from which they can only very rarely expect to profit no matter what they do. I think the plan was to make the speech, put out the platform as it were, and so allow the subject to drop. There was no way without some sort of vision before 2015 that it wasn't going to resurface with differing views and Tory "blue-on-blue" attacks. I think DC did what he had to but of course the proof of the pudding is yet to come. I think the 2014 elections will be an annoying time for the Tories.
'Under its plans, no one would be able to remain unemployed for more than two years, reduced to a year for a young person. After that, they would be offered a real job with appropriate training funded by the taxing of bankers' bonuses and restructuring pension tax relief for the wealthiest. If they fail to take the job they would be stripped of benefits.'
So taxes on bankers bonuses are going to be used to pay for fake jobs for 2.5 million unemployed people in addition to a social house building program.
Must be a massive new tax as the EU has now dramatically reduced the size of bankers bonus's. And if the banks start to move offshore the tax gets even higher,the 1970's revisited.
More rubbish from a Labour party that has lost it's raison d'etre.
"........the working class can lick my arse, I've got the formans job at last!"
I'm not really on top of things like this, but hasn't the policy of recent governments been to ensure that mothers who took time off work - with reduced NI contributions as a result - shouldn't lose out?
Devil in the detail in this one (as well as if it is actually adopted of course).
There was no way without some sort of vision before 2015 that it wasn't going to resurface with differing views and Tory "blue-on-blue" attacks.
It still will. He has merely ensured that the tory party can now officially split into IN and OUT with his blessing. As you say it will resurface in some form in 2014, but if the polls remain dire and the election campaign begins then some of the eurosceptics will not be able to restrain themselves and the BOOers in particular will start their own campaign on staying out. All the more so if the kippers are eating away at their vote in vulnerable seats.
Cammie can't seriously believe they will remain quiet about the EU forever. That's simply not in their nature. He bought himself a bit of breathing space but only for the moment.
Syrian insurgents now threaten two major special weapon facilities, the long contested Al Safira in the North and and southern Dumeir site. With such scenarios keeping international governments awake at night apparently the contingencies have all been drawn up. The question is, what exactly are the plans? We've heard about favoured insurgents being trained in Jordan to secure such sites, multi national special operations drops to secure the facilities, or just an outright incineration from the air. If the Americans hesitate you can bet someone else will do it for them.
The US is still dancing around some kind of concerted overt intervention with talks of a quick set of air strikes, the no fly zone using surface to air missiles without the use of any NATO aircraft and so on. Its the same options put on the table ages ago. The only differences now are: -The Washington wonks have little doubt that Assad is done -Domestic political calls for intervention are growing at Congressional level
The problem is the same, who do they support? Fears over Islamist radicals is still acute and ever later intervention essentially make the situation more cloudy where earlier firm intervention, whether covert or overt, may have short circuited the potential problem. Certainly the West has long had a half in, half out approach of doing bits of activity (particularly through training rebels in Jordan for a South-North assault on Damascus)
Others have less hesitation. Whilst the Qataris have at times turned off the equipment taps (if not the money) under Western pressure, the Saudis, engaged a proxy with both Qatar and Iran, haven't stopped and the US seems to be more comfortable to their efforts than those of the Qataris. If stories are true the Saudis aim to supply the rebels with more than infantry support weapons and light rocket artillery currently used to great effect . They have been reportedly trying to source some heavy artillery.
Whilst the West hesitates to such an extent that it has extended to the massive refugee issue, on the battlefield the situation for Assad still doesn't get any better. The rebels themselves often co-operate and occasionally conflict but still seem to have the better hand at the moment.
Assad's forces closer to Damascus have been issued with the necessary chemical warfare gear, potentially for offensive preparation, potentially for protection should rebels go for their own attack. Isolated garrisons are being supplied by airdrops.
Its probable more than possible that it won't end well. Two things will need to be sorted to bring the guns to an end, Assad will have to go and enough of his support willing to desert him, and the rebel movement will need to be willing to give space to a process without turning to street fighting.
Cammie can't seriously believe they will remain quiet about the EU forever. That's simply not in their nature. He bought himself a bit of breathing space but only for the moment.
Surely CCHQ are on a damage limitation exercise here. There's an amount of grumbling consistent with a coherent party (/that the public are willing to accept before they think of the party as divided) and they'll be trying to keep to that, I imagine. Whether it works or not I'm not sure, seems to have done OK so far. I also think the back benches seem to "work themselves into" this sort of thing rather than it happening overnight. 2014 obviously poses a formidable obstacle between them and 2015.
From that report, the most damning indictment on this country
"The UK comes seventh, equal to Belgium"
Belgium!!! That's not even a real country, one created mostly to annoy the French.
I thought it was to annoy the Dutch. Belgium was part of the Netherlands 1815-1830.
Former French President and inept General (almost the Hannibal of his era) agrees with me
Belgium, that state de Gaulle claimed had been invented by the British to annoy the French, may be about to go the way of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and of Czechoslovakia; and if it does, my friends, I will be the first to mourn.
@iainmartin1: If Lab opposes any welfare cuts + wants more for those who've paid in more then that's an *increase* in welfare spending. How's that work?
Belgium!!! That's not even a real country, one created mostly to annoy the French.
I thought it was to annoy the Dutch. Belgium was part of the Netherlands 1815-1830.
It was also designed to frustrate the Germans.
Trust the British to find a plan that suited nobody else.
(The British were most worried about it being annexed by France, but, in 1914, the same set of guarantees that stopped it being annexed by France 'protected' it from the Germans.)
From that report, the most damning indictment on this country
"The UK comes seventh, equal to Belgium"
Belgium!!! That's not even a real country, one created mostly to annoy the French.
I thought it was to annoy the Dutch. Belgium was part of the Netherlands 1815-1830.
Former French President and inept General (almost the Hannibal of his era) agrees with me
Belgium, that state de Gaulle claimed had been invented by the British to annoy the French, may be about to go the way of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and of Czechoslovakia; and if it does, my friends, I will be the first to mourn.
Belgium!!! That's not even a real country, one created mostly to annoy the French.
I thought it was to annoy the Dutch. Belgium was part of the Netherlands 1815-1830.
It was also designed to frustrate the Germans.
Trust the British to find a plan that suited nobody else.
Ah I must remind you of the Yes Prime Minister quote
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister. Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
From that report, the most damning indictment on this country
"The UK comes seventh, equal to Belgium"
Belgium!!! That's not even a real country, one created mostly to annoy the French.
I thought it was to annoy the Dutch. Belgium was part of the Netherlands 1815-1830.
Former French President and inept General (almost the Hannibal of his era) agrees with me
Belgium, that state de Gaulle claimed had been invented by the British to annoy the French, may be about to go the way of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and of Czechoslovakia; and if it does, my friends, I will be the first to mourn.
more Labour surprised that Labour will cut welfare bill. But nobody seriously believes it, Labour have never willingly cut a welfare bill in their lives. Mindless spending, it's what you do.
Cammie can't seriously believe they will remain quiet about the EU forever. That's simply not in their nature. He bought himself a bit of breathing space but only for the moment.
Surely CCHQ are on a damage limitation exercise here.
Pretty much. It was a short term fix born of desperation with seemingly very little thought given to the long term implications for the tory party, which are huge.
"I also think the back benches seem to "work themselves into" this sort of thing rather than it happening overnight."
Well they do like to plot it has to be said. That is a constant regardless of who the PM is. External events are more likely to set them off right now and if May is a bloodbath with the kippers doing well Cammie better have one eye on what they are up to.
" 2014 obviously poses a formidable obstacle between them and 2015."
I can't see any happy outcome for them there unless Farage implodes with the likes of Crosby doing his best to help that along. Not a sure thing by any means.
The nightmare scenario would be the polls staying as they are with a battering in the 2014 EU elections and then a campaign where it looks increasingly likely that Cammie will lose.
Then it's every man for himself with the tory party backbenchers beginning to wonder who the next leader will be and whether they will support IN or OUT or neither. That being the case the BOOers will want to ensure they get their message across that it should be OUT and the fun and games begin even before the election campaign has ended.
From that report, the most damning indictment on this country
"The UK comes seventh, equal to Belgium"
Belgium!!! That's not even a real country, one created mostly to annoy the French.
I thought it was to annoy the Dutch. Belgium was part of the Netherlands 1815-1830.
Former French President and inept General (almost the Hannibal of his era) agrees with me
Belgium, that state de Gaulle claimed had been invented by the British to annoy the French, may be about to go the way of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and of Czechoslovakia; and if it does, my friends, I will be the first to mourn.
From that report, the most damning indictment on this country
"The UK comes seventh, equal to Belgium"
Belgium!!! That's not even a real country, one created mostly to annoy the French.
I thought it was to annoy the Dutch. Belgium was part of the Netherlands 1815-1830.
Former French President and inept General (almost the Hannibal of his era) agrees with me
Belgium, that state de Gaulle claimed had been invented by the British to annoy the French, may be about to go the way of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and of Czechoslovakia; and if it does, my friends, I will be the first to mourn.
Working age benefit spending fell for over a decade after the Tory peak 1994/96. And Osborne is spending more than Brown every year
Yadda bullshit, tim. Labor made it profitable to stay on welfare. Labour keep people on welfare. Labour = handouts. And you have no credible evidence to the contrary.
It's amazing the number of politicians and pundits in the last few days talking about child benefit and possibly limiting it to 2 children.
Forget child benefit. The really massive payments are child tax credits and other tax credits.
Every pundit needs to understand this:
Single person with 2 children working on a salary of £10,000. Final net income = £20,568.
The taxman doubles their money. They pay tax of £381 but receive benefits of £10,949.
So 10,000 - 381 + 10,949 = £20,568.
Just £1,752 of those benefits are child benefit. The rest is chid tax credits + other tax credits (including family element only paid to those with children).
The other thing everyone needs to understand is that for any ordinary working person on a low to middle income with children the marginal tax rate is 73%.
If the above person earns £20,000 more gross salary (ie £30k instead of £10k), they gain just £5,400. So there is almost no incentive at all to work.
And remember the above figures are for someone with 2 children. Not extreme cases of 4, 5 or more children. These are the numbers for millions of ordinary people in Britain today.
They are so startling that when I posted them the other day people on the left thought they must be wrong. They aren't. Yet because no political commentator gets tax credits nobody seems to be aware of this astonishing situation.
Then we hear about stopping wealthy pensions getting Winter Fuel allowance. The benefits paid to just one person as above = 50 Winter Fuel allowances.
From that report, the most damning indictment on this country
"The UK comes seventh, equal to Belgium"
Belgium!!! That's not even a real country, one created mostly to annoy the French.
I thought it was to annoy the Dutch. Belgium was part of the Netherlands 1815-1830.
Former French President and inept General (almost the Hannibal of his era) agrees with me
Belgium, that state de Gaulle claimed had been invented by the British to annoy the French, may be about to go the way of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and of Czechoslovakia; and if it does, my friends, I will be the first to mourn.
There aren't any welfare cuts, the bedroom tax will increase spending now subletting is to be made tax free and not count against Universal Credit. And Pickles dep thinks the cap will increase spending too.
But Tory Govts always increase benefit spending, everyone knows that
And how much is being spent by local authorities housing people in B&B accommodation because they have been evicted by landlords unwilling to accept lower levels of HB? This is another consequence of benefit "savings."
It wasn't "created" by the British! There was a revolution against Dutch rule!
Oh, the state was created by the British. The uprising and Belgian sentiment was not. As I understand, the Congress of Vienna required Belgium to stay part of the Netherlands (rather than France) and I'm almost certain the rebellion would have petered out if the British hadn't called the shots in favour of a Belgian state.
Tomorrow morning I head home after four fascinating days in Iceland. The Icelandic people are great, much more open and gregarious than their Scandinavian cousins (who are also pretty nifty). They are also a lot less pro-British. We have not been their greatest friends over the years. The terrorism charge was just the latest in a line of bad behaviour from the folk who they call the Brits. But in villainy, we are nowhere near the worst. The Danes get that accolade. Their closest friends, it seems, are the Faeroe Islanders. And don't believe all you read about proud independence. A lot of the people I spoke to would favour joining the Euro. The kronor, they say, is a disaster because it fluctuates wildly. As 97% of the goods they produce are exported, that is a nightmare for them.
Tomorrow morning I head home after four fascinating days in Iceland. The Icelandic people are great, much more open and gregarious than their Scandinavian cousins (who are also pretty nifty). They are also a lot less pro-British. We have not been their greatest friends over the years. The terrorism charge was just the latest in a line of bad behaviour from the folk who they call the Brits. But in villainy, we are nowhere near the worst. The Danes get that accolade. Their closest friends, it seems, are the Faeroe Islanders. And don't believe all you read about proud independence. A lot of the people I spoke to would favour joining the Euro. The kronor, they say, is a disaster because it fluctuates wildly. As 97% of the goods they produce are exported, that is a nightmare for them.
Icelanders live to get off their island, if only for short periods of respite.
Adoption of the Euro is popular because it promises the end of currency controls.
Have you been swimming in the thermal baths yet, SO?
Tomorrow morning I head home after four fascinating days in Iceland. The Icelandic people are great, much more open and gregarious than their Scandinavian cousins (who are also pretty nifty). They are also a lot less pro-British. We have not been their greatest friends over the years. The terrorism charge was just the latest in a line of bad behaviour from the folk who they call the Brits. But in villainy, we are nowhere near the worst. The Danes get that accolade. Their closest friends, it seems, are the Faeroe Islanders. And don't believe all you read about proud independence. A lot of the people I spoke to would favour joining the Euro. The kronor, they say, is a disaster because it fluctuates wildly. As 97% of the goods they produce are exported, that is a nightmare for them.
Icelanders live to get off their island, if only for short periods of respite.
Adoption of the Euro is popular because it promises the end of currency controls.
Have you been swimming in the thermal baths yet, SO?
No time. Too much work. But I'll be back. I think we may be able to do some business here. Especially as the exchnage rate is so tasty!
Apparently 70% of all Icelanders have been to Denmark. But I reckon 80% of all the Icelanders I have met are very antagonistic towards the Danes, who - apparently - have never forgiven Iceland for declaring independence when Denmark was occupied by the Nazis.
Yet you agree Osborne should be long gone, you know the poll showing his toxicity is right. Everything else is defensive bluster
Just because I think Osborne is not the man for the job doesn't mean I think Balls is. The man is a walking disaster who helped wreck the economy. As for defensive when you can ever come up with a policy instead of personality politics Labour may have a point, but on current performance we'll all be dead by then. Labour = lost the plot.
It's the only real gamechanger they have left given that the next election will be dominated by the economy. Only Osbrowne's inept spinners could possibly believe he is anything other than a toxic liability with the voters.
It's the only real gamechanger they have left given that the next election will be dominated by the economy. Only Osbrowne's inept spinners could possibly believe he is anything other than a toxic liability with the voters.
It's the only real gamechanger they have left given that the next election will be dominated by the economy. Only Osbrowne's inept spinners could possibly believe he is anything other than a toxic liability with the voters.
It's the only real gamechanger they have left given that the next election will be dominated by the economy. Only Osbrowne's inept spinners could possibly believe he is anything other than a toxic liability with the voters.
Just as well for Osborne the arses at labour are fielding Balls against him then, the only other man toxic enough to make Osborne look good.
Just because I think Osborne is not the man for the job doesn't mean I think Balls is.
He's not. If Osbrowne goes then things will fairly swiftly move on to whether Balls is the right person to be up against any replacement. Which he won't be.
Just because I think Osborne is not the man for the job doesn't mean I think Balls is.
He's not. If Osbrowne goes then things will fairly swiftly move on to whether Balls is the right person to be up against any replacement. Which he won't be.
I'm actually hoping the reverse Mick, that Balls get the sack and it forces Cameron to move Osborne to keep the CoE job fresh. But that requires Miliband to stand up to Balls and he's shit scared.
that requires Miliband to stand up to Balls and he's shit scared.
Worth noting that the usual suspects are already up in arms. Liam Byrne is being lined up to take the fall if Ed's Union paymasters force him to retreat back into the unlimited spending comfort zone
@Alanborrke.. In PB Toryworld Balls makes Osborne look good, in the real world
"Voters are less likely to back the Government’s core economic policies when they are told George Osborne is the author, an extraordinary poll reveals today.
The Ipsos MORI survey, a week ahead of the Budget, may suggest that the Chancellor is so toxic to voters that he has become a liability to his own flagship policies.
Researchers gave half the poll sample a summary of the Coalition’s argument that deficit-reduction should be the priority, without any mention of Mr Osborne’s name. They were also given a summary of Labour’s arguments for higher spending on growth measures and asked to choose between them.
The other half of the sample were shown identical summaries, but this time preceded by the words “George Osborne argues that ... or “Ed Balls argues that...”
Adding the names of the politicians made a dramatic difference to the way people responded. When Osborne and Balls were not mentioned, voters backed the austerity policies by 52 per cent to 41 — an 11-point lead for the Coalition.
But when Mr Osborne and Mr Balls were identified as the authors, support for the Coalition policy fell to 37 per cent, and support for Labour’s policy jumped to 53 per cent — some 16 points ahead."
PB Tory Anecdote vs polling.
tim data cherry picking versus reality. Voters hate both of them and they're both shite. We've been through the poll selection before and both of them are disliked - Balls even commissioned private polling to find out why voters want to stamp on his face. That one is hated more than the other means little, they're both toxic. Odds are Balls would be hated more than Osborne if he had the job. Both Osborne and Balls do little for their parties and neither is good at the CoE job.
I'm actually hoping the reverse Mick, that Balls get the sack
Zero chance of that as long as Osbrowne is still there. Balls can miss wide open goals all day with Osbrowne and it won't matter because the damage has already been done. Osbrowne gifted little Ed labour's lead. Balls certainly didn't get labour that lead. The very idea is laughable.
Zero chance of that as long as Osbrowne is still there. Balls can miss wide open goals all day with Osbrowne and it won't matter because the damage has already been done. Osbrowne gifted little Ed labour's lead, Balls certainly didn't get labour that lead. The very idea is laughable.
Balls does miss open goals all day, if Labour had someone vaguely competent Osborne would be gone.
I wouldn't worry Mr Pole, tim's fixation on GO isn't based on GO's performance as CoE but on the fact that Osborne spooked Brown and made Mandy look a prat. That the upper echelons of New Labour could be outwitted by a clever carrot just makes the bile driven vendetta more desperate at every post.
I wouldn't worry Mr Pole, tim's fixation on GO isn't based on GO's performance as CoE but on the fact that Osborne spooked Brown and made Mandy look a prat. That the upper echelons of New Labour could be outwitted by a clever carrot just makes the bile driven vendetta more desperate at every post.
tim is very occasionally witty.
We should nurture his talent.
PB Tories should never deny an equality of opportunity.
I wouldn't worry Mr Pole, tim's fixation on GO isn't based on GO's performance as CoE but on the fact that Osborne spooked Brown and made Mandy look a prat. That the upper echelons of New Labour could be outwitted by a clever carrot just makes the bile driven vendetta more desperate at every post.
When did we last have a popular chancellor?
Healey perhaps but there was evil intent behind the faux affability.
As you say yourself, should've gone before he cost the Tories 7% with his election campaign and then went on to cost them 7% more with his budget.
Worth 50 seats to Labour in 2010 and 50 in 2015
GO will cost seats as will Balls, if labour had any brains they'd hack into the Tory weak spot on the front bench, but they have their own chums problem in that Ed can't move Ed. You only have to look at photos or video clips to see the body language is all wrong.
I wouldn't worry Mr Pole, tim's fixation on GO isn't based on GO's performance as CoE but on the fact that Osborne spooked Brown and made Mandy look a prat. That the upper echelons of New Labour could be outwitted by a clever carrot just makes the bile driven vendetta more desperate at every post.
When did we last have a popular chancellor?
Healey perhaps but there was evil intent behind the faux affability.
Both Lawson and Brown were popular in their time, but both outstayed their popularity, I think the trick is to keep moving. GO's best chance to gain a legacy is to move and let memories mellow.
I wouldn't worry Mr Pole, tim's fixation on GO isn't based on GO's performance as CoE but on the fact that Osborne spooked Brown and made Mandy look a prat. That the upper echelons of New Labour could be outwitted by a clever carrot just makes the bile driven vendetta more desperate at every post.
When did we last have a popular chancellor?
Healey perhaps but there was evil intent behind the faux affability.
Both Lawson and Brown were popular in their time, but both outstayed their popularity, I think the trick is to keep moving. GO's best chance to gain a legacy is to move and let memories mellow.
Osborne can move in the next parliament, either because he and Dave have lost or because his job will be seen to have been done.
Where to though?
Hague has made such a good job of Foreign Secretary that it would hard to replace him against his will and George would probably neither want nor be good at the Home Office.
Brown was consistently popular, despite spending less than Osborne
Get your friend Rach to write to Chairman Philpott at the ONS. He should be able to write a letter which explains the difference between nominal and inflation adjusted spending figures.
I wouldn't worry Mr Pole, tim's fixation on GO isn't based on GO's performance as CoE but on the fact that Osborne spooked Brown and made Mandy look a prat. That the upper echelons of New Labour could be outwitted by a clever carrot just makes the bile driven vendetta more desperate at every post.
When did we last have a popular chancellor?
Healey perhaps but there was evil intent behind the faux affability.
Both Lawson and Brown were popular in their time, but both outstayed their popularity, I think the trick is to keep moving. GO's best chance to gain a legacy is to move and let memories mellow.
Osborne can move in the next parliament, either because he and Dave have lost or because his job will be seen to have been done.
Where to though?
Hague has made such a good job of Foreign Secretary that it would hard to replace him against his will and George would probably neither want nor be good at the Home Office.
Well it's late and I'm off to bed but really GO has done only half the job as CoE. managing the cash while important isn't the same as getting growth going and enabling us to pay debt down. GO has failed on growth and really hasn't much idea of what to do next.
As for where to go well a party grandee job could fit the bill or swap places with May.
I wouldn't worry Mr Pole, tim's fixation on GO isn't based on GO's performance as CoE but on the fact that Osborne spooked Brown and made Mandy look a prat. That the upper echelons of New Labour could be outwitted by a clever carrot just makes the bile driven vendetta more desperate at every post.
When did we last have a popular chancellor?
Healey perhaps but there was evil intent behind the faux affability.
Both Lawson and Brown were popular in their time, but both outstayed their popularity, I think the trick is to keep moving. GO's best chance to gain a legacy is to move and let memories mellow.
Osborne can move in the next parliament, either because he and Dave have lost or because his job will be seen to have been done.
Where to though?
Hague has made such a good job of Foreign Secretary that it would hard to replace him against his will and George would probably neither want nor be good at the Home Office.
Well it's late and I'm off to bed but really GO has done only half the job as CoE. managing the cash while important isn't the same as getting growth going and enabling us to pay debt down. GO has failed on growth and really hasn't much idea of what to do next.
As for where to go well a party grandee job could fit the bill or swap places with May.
A subject to which we will undoubtedly return many a time before 2015.
So I won't let it disturb your sleep.
I'll just say that I think we need to see GO through the bank sales and mortgage shenanigans (not just the guarantees) before awarding his final grade.
A significant majority of people support reform of the welfare system, according to a YouGov poll of nearly 2,000 people for The Sunday Times. Overall, reform is backed by 70%, who say the current system works badly. Although support for a shake-up is strongest among Conservative and Liberal Democrat supporters, it is also backed by a majority, 51%, of Labour voters
Restricting the rise in most working-age benefits to 1% a year over the next three years is regarded as fair by 59% and unfair by 28%. Labour supporters are split: 40% say it is fair, 44% unfair. By two to one, 61% to 29%, people support restricting child benefit to the first two children.
In a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times, 61% of respondents said they thought police should not be able to sue if they injured themselves during the course of their duties.
PARTY election manifestos should be independently vetted to expose rash spending promises and pledges to cut taxes, one of Britain’s most experienced mandarins has proposed.
Lord O’Donnell, the former cabinet secretary, believes a watchdog could assess pledges in manifestos and calculate what the bill would be to the taxpayer or how much revenue they would raise.
Comments
He should remember Proverbs 16:18
As Ed Miliband's party seeks to counter Tory claims that it is soft on welfare, the Observer understands that detailed work is under way in the party's policy review on how to revolutionise the way the system works and address concerns that it promotes a "something-for-nothing" culture.
One central idea under consideration is the creation of a flexible payments system offering higher benefits to those who have been employed for longer and have therefore made more national insurance contributions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/labour-plans-shift-welfare-payouts
"In February of last year Lisa Willis left you, taking her children with her. She did not dare tell you she was leaving. She told Mairead Philpott that she was taking her children swimming.
"She and the children left with the clothes they stood up in and their swimming things. You soon realised what had happened and you set about trying to bring her back.
"The evidence shows that you tried sweet-talking her. You tried cajoling and then bullying her. Sometimes you moved between the three tactics. She would not come back. You could not stand the fact that she had crossed you. You were determined to make sure that she came back and you began to put together your plan."
"Before I turn to what you did next, it is necessary to look at the history of your relationships with other women.
"The first with which I am concerned was a relationship with a girl in her teens. You were in your 20s. The relationship was characterised by violence - there were repeated beatings.
"On one occasion you broke her arm, on another you dislocated her knee with a sledgehammer. You were sure that she was having affairs and would come back from your posting in the army to check on her, repeatedly. Eventually she summoned the courage to bring your relationship to an end. You did not accept her decision.
"You broke into her house, armed yourself with a knife and went to her bedroom where you stabbed her repeatedly in a ferocious attack which left her with life-threatening injuries from which she has never fully recovered.
"You intended, as a jury were later to find, to kill her. When her mother intervened you turned on her. You stabbed her repeatedly in a further vicious attack and you caused her serious injuries.
"You were convicted of attempted murder and wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act. You have, I am rightly reminded, served your sentence for that but it is clear from the evidence that I excluded from the trial that you have repeatedly used that conviction as a means of controlling other women, terrifying them as to what you might do to them if they did not follow your will.
"When you came out of prison you married your first wife. Three children were born. You subjected your wife to physical violence throughout your relationship.
"She never reported anything to the police. She was too afraid to do so. She knew of your past. She believed she could not leave you."
Also, the Labour plan sounds like it may mean higher spending. The alternative is cutting benefits for the unemployed, which would be interesting from a party that opposed a £26k benefit cap.
So even higher spending by Labour on benefits,what a surprise.
@DPJHodges: Glad about Observer report that Labour's looking to shift stance on welfare. But the timing? It's embarrassing. Just embarrassing.
When Cammie sets Crosby on Farage (as he most assuredly will since nothing else has worked) I have my doubts whether the way Farage runs the Kippers will stand up to the kind of 'scrutiny' Crosby will be feeding some of the papers. We shall see.
It was not for the judge to trespass on the province of the jury, and her sentencing remarks cannot be interpreted in a manner that does so. Thirwall J's stress on Mr Philpott's previous abusive relationships, and in particular his conviction for attempted murder and s. 18 were necessary because the court had to determine whether Philpott was sufficiently dangerous that only an indeterminate sentence was merited. Thirwall J held that that was indeed the case.
The three main parties that we have at present have ruined Britain. Since WW2 we have lost most of our old industries, without replacing them with new ones. We have gorged on debt and made us all but bankrupt where it counts most in the peoples well-being. The main parties have also made us almost defenceless against current and future enemies.
Britain still insists it is one of the leading powers in the world but without our own fuels tap, oil,gas, coal or nuclear we are in anybodies power should they try to squeeze us on our present weakness. We are in thrall to an increasingly undemocratic EU, ordered about by a growing bunch of autocrats from Brussels.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Vote UKIP for a restoration of government of the people for the people by the people.
*chortle*
If it's cutting benefits then that's an utter volte-face and contrary to everything they've said and how they've voted. If they're now proposing more money for some then that's more consistent but it also means wanting more spending, which is a very French way to go.
How can it possibly fail?
So taxes on bankers bonuses are going to be used to pay for fake jobs for 2.5 million unemployed people in addition to a social house building program.
Must be a massive new tax as the EU has now dramatically reduced the size of bankers bonus's. And if the banks start to move offshore the tax gets even higher,the 1970's revisited.
"........the working class
can lick my arse,
I've got the formans job at last!"
Devil in the detail in this one (as well as if it is actually adopted of course).
'That turned out well, didn't it?
A bit like the 'arc of prosperity'
Cammie can't seriously believe they will remain quiet about the EU forever. That's simply not in their nature. He bought himself a bit of breathing space but only for the moment.
Child benefit comparison between 22 countries. UK comes 7th but it's complicated
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/174summ.pdf
"The UK comes seventh, equal to Belgium"
Belgium!!! That's not even a real country, one created mostly to annoy the French.
Syrian insurgents now threaten two major special weapon facilities, the long contested Al Safira in the North and and southern Dumeir site. With such scenarios keeping international governments awake at night apparently the contingencies have all been drawn up. The question is, what exactly are the plans? We've heard about favoured insurgents being trained in Jordan to secure such sites, multi national special operations drops to secure the facilities, or just an outright incineration from the air. If the Americans hesitate you can bet someone else will do it for them.
The US is still dancing around some kind of concerted overt intervention with talks of a quick set of air strikes, the no fly zone using surface to air missiles without the use of any NATO aircraft and so on. Its the same options put on the table ages ago. The only differences now are:
-The Washington wonks have little doubt that Assad is done
-Domestic political calls for intervention are growing at Congressional level
The problem is the same, who do they support? Fears over Islamist radicals is still acute and ever later intervention essentially make the situation more cloudy where earlier firm intervention, whether covert or overt, may have short circuited the potential problem. Certainly the West has long had a half in, half out approach of doing bits of activity (particularly through training rebels in Jordan for a South-North assault on Damascus)
Others have less hesitation. Whilst the Qataris have at times turned off the equipment taps (if not the money) under Western pressure, the Saudis, engaged a proxy with both Qatar and Iran, haven't stopped and the US seems to be more comfortable to their efforts than those of the Qataris. If stories are true the Saudis aim to supply the rebels with more than infantry support weapons and light rocket artillery currently used to great effect . They have been reportedly trying to source some heavy artillery.
Whilst the West hesitates to such an extent that it has extended to the massive refugee issue, on the battlefield the situation for Assad still doesn't get any better. The rebels themselves often co-operate and occasionally conflict but still seem to have the better hand at the moment.
Assad's forces closer to Damascus have been issued with the necessary chemical warfare gear, potentially for offensive preparation, potentially for protection should rebels go for their own attack. Isolated garrisons are being supplied by airdrops.
Its probable more than possible that it won't end well. Two things will need to be sorted to bring the guns to an end, Assad will have to go and enough of his support willing to desert him, and the rebel movement will need to be willing to give space to a process without turning to street fighting.
Belgium, that state de Gaulle claimed had been invented by the British to annoy the French, may be about to go the way of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and of Czechoslovakia; and if it does, my friends, I will be the first to mourn.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3642794/End-of-Belgium-should-be-a-warning-to-Gordon.html
Trust the British to find a plan that suited nobody else.
(The British were most worried about it being annexed by France, but, in 1914, the same set of guarantees that stopped it being annexed by France 'protected' it from the Germans.)
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
That alone should save them, that and Mr Poirot oh and the Chocolate.
more Labour surprised that Labour will cut welfare bill. But nobody seriously believes it, Labour have never willingly cut a welfare bill in their lives. Mindless spending, it's what you do.
"I also think the back benches seem to "work themselves into" this sort of thing rather than it happening overnight."
Well they do like to plot it has to be said. That is a constant regardless of who the PM is. External events are more likely to set them off right now and if May is a bloodbath with the kippers doing well Cammie better have one eye on what they are up to.
" 2014 obviously poses a formidable obstacle between them and 2015."
I can't see any happy outcome for them there unless Farage implodes with the likes of Crosby doing his best to help that along. Not a sure thing by any means.
The nightmare scenario would be the polls staying as they are with a battering in the 2014 EU elections and then a campaign where it looks increasingly likely that Cammie will lose.
Then it's every man for himself with the tory party backbenchers beginning to wonder who the next leader will be and whether they will support IN or OUT or neither. That being the case the BOOers will want to ensure they get their message across that it should be OUT and the fun and games begin even before the election campaign has ended.
Forget child benefit. The really massive payments are child tax credits and other tax credits.
Every pundit needs to understand this:
Single person with 2 children working on a salary of £10,000. Final net income = £20,568.
The taxman doubles their money. They pay tax of £381 but receive benefits of £10,949.
So 10,000 - 381 + 10,949 = £20,568.
Just £1,752 of those benefits are child benefit. The rest is chid tax credits + other tax credits (including family element only paid to those with children).
The other thing everyone needs to understand is that for any ordinary working person on a low to middle income with children the marginal tax rate is 73%.
If the above person earns £20,000 more gross salary (ie £30k instead of £10k), they gain just £5,400. So there is almost no incentive at all to work.
And remember the above figures are for someone with 2 children. Not extreme cases of 4, 5 or more children. These are the numbers for millions of ordinary people in Britain today.
They are so startling that when I posted them the other day people on the left thought they must be wrong. They aren't. Yet because no political commentator gets tax credits nobody seems to be aware of this astonishing situation.
Then we hear about stopping wealthy pensions getting Winter Fuel allowance. The benefits paid to just one person as above = 50 Winter Fuel allowances.
Context!!!!!
tim on Saturday as the chimes at midnight approaches:
Post 1. Tory Govts always increase benefit spending, everyone knows that
Post 2. And Osborne is spending more [on working age benefits] than Brown every year
Post 3. Just 10% of those questioned in the Opinium/Observer said they believed more welfare cuts should be made
"More welfare cuts", tim?
What cuts?
Cleggy calls out Labour on tax lies - Miliband silent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305047/Stop-pulling-wool-peoples-eyes-Clegg-hits-Labour-criticism-tax-reforms.html
That's started well, hasn't it?
Staggering incompetence.
Adoption of the Euro is popular because it promises the end of currency controls.
Have you been swimming in the thermal baths yet, SO?
Apparently 70% of all Icelanders have been to Denmark. But I reckon 80% of all the Icelanders I have met are very antagonistic towards the Danes, who - apparently - have never forgiven Iceland for declaring independence when Denmark was occupied by the Nazis.
The markets and economic performance metrics are doing that for them.
Borrowing (10 year bond yields) @ 1.66%
AAA rating confirmed by S&P.
Deficit down by 33% and falling (watch for the ONS Public Finance Bulletin - March 2013 due later this month for further very good news).
UK outperforming all its major EU competitors in key growth and employment statistics.
@MrHarryCole: Labour try to jump on the welfare reform bandwagon after a week of denial and 3 years of opposing a single change http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/labour-plans-shift-welfare-payouts
We should nurture his talent.
PB Tories should never deny an equality of opportunity.
Healey perhaps but there was evil intent behind the faux affability.
Do we have it yet?
Where to though?
Hague has made such a good job of Foreign Secretary that it would hard to replace him against his will and George would probably neither want nor be good at the Home Office.
Round 1
Rachael Saunders 261
John Biggs 257
Helal Abbas 207
Sirajul Islam Siraj 26
Final round
Biggs 328
Saunders 319
You can copy me in on the response if you wish.
As for where to go well a party grandee job could fit the bill or swap places with May.
So I won't let it disturb your sleep.
I'll just say that I think we need to see GO through the bank sales and mortgage shenanigans (not just the guarantees) before awarding his final grade.
Is that a picture of your home?
You should note that a police officer when acting in the course of his duties is permitted to park in a disabled parking bay.
Neither George nor his driver has contravened parking regulations.
Not strict enough 63%
Too strict 22%
Gets the balance right 9%
DK 6%
Fair 78%
Unfair 10%
DK 12%
Support 63%
Oppose 26%
DK 11%
Reasonable 26%
Not reasonable 63%
DK 11%
No wonder Ed is running down the road trying to leap on the moving bandwagon!
PARTY election manifestos should be independently vetted to expose rash spending promises and pledges to cut taxes, one of Britain’s most experienced mandarins has proposed.
Lord O’Donnell, the former cabinet secretary, believes a watchdog could assess pledges in manifestos and calculate what the bill would be to the taxpayer or how much revenue they would raise.