The current system doesn't remotely attempt it. Would Osborne's? And by the way, the same applies to Labour's jobs guarantee. Labour would pay the wages for 6 months for someone willing to take the guy on. But who would?
A good post. At the end of the day, it is up to every adult to look after themselves where possible. Where they cannot, for instance due to disability or loss of job, the state should step in to help them. On that, I think all the political parties are in agreement.
In the case you mention, there is help available. Are you sure he's never taken it? As far as I'm aware, there's no way you can force an addict to drop their addiction. It has to be up to them. But what happens if they reject all those offers of help, if they cannot beat the addiction that bedevils them? If they yo-yo in and out of rehab?
But there's also a danger in assuming that everyone is in that boat. Many are not. As I wrote below, with some people I used to know (and still know in two cases), the problem is a lack of confidence. One was unemployed under Thatcher. He's still unemployed.
The Conservatives did not help him. Labour did not help him. But in both cases the help was there, if he had wanted it. The poor guy has absolutely no confidence that he can better himself. He's a genuinely nice guy. But I cannot forgive him for the fact that his kids grew up with that same sort of attitude.
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
I don't know who your nonsensical phrase 'PBTories' refers to, but sensible people such as George Osborne and IDS realise that the long-term unemployed includes a very large number of people who are either not disabled at all, or who suffer from health problems which are not so severe as to make working impossible, and, amongst those, there are many who have become trapped in a long-term vicious circle of welfare dependency which it turn leads to depression and other problems, who lose confidence, whose skills become outdated, who need help to get back into work for their own good and for the good of society as a whole. Amongst those are certainly a few wasters who fit your description, but the vast majority are more victims of the system than exploiters of it.
Labour, and it seems some LibDems, seem to think that just paying them off and leaving them festering in this cycle of despair is somehow compassionate. It's not.
Good post which brings a helpful dose of reality to this topic.
More generally It strikes me a slight sniff of economic recovery (which I suspect Osborne will inject a dose of realism to shortly) has caused certain people to abandon common sense and reveal their true and not very appetising colours. I would have thought Lib Dems should be praising the coalitions achievements to date. They won't have much else to cling onto come 2015.
Does anyone think the Bullingdon Boys are really the appropriate people to tell the unemployed to get off their backsides and turn up every day at an employment exchange for £69 a week or they'll lose their benefit? Don't you think those born without a silver spoon might find it rather repulsive?
I don't think that this proposal will be unpopular with the electorate generally.
"Crime was already falling under Labour" is a strange repost. According to the BCS/CSEW it was already falling (if only for a year) under Major. In any case, it hardly takes away from the large fall in almost every type of crime under the present government. (Sexual offences make up the most important exception, but they are subject to the most uncertainty about whether reported crimes reflect the true extent of crime, and so forth.)
I would however agree that there were cynics in 2010 who would not believe crime was falling (assisted by the then Opposition) and there will be cynics in 2015 (assisted by the then Opposition). The ones in 2015 will be even more wrong than the ones in 2010.
Since we're dealing in anecdotes, let me share one.
My father, now he's retired (sort of), does various different jobs. Among these, he works voluntarily as a driver for a small charity. Until the charity changed its systems recently, he used to be paired with prisoners from a local prison nearing the end of long sentences as part of their rehabilitation. I would have thought that particular group were as hard a group of potential employees to work with as any that you could find. As far as I can see, this worked pretty well.
I am sure the sight of disabled people in wheelchairs going around spearing up litter or going to the job centre every day is going to show that Conservatives care . The truth is that the Tories have written off the votes for ever of that section of society and no longer care how much they impoverish them or make their lives harder on a daily basis .
That is wrong on so many levels.
Please provide a link for your hugely unpleasant assertion
If anything, I think it could help some people to get back into the habit of working.
"Crime was already falling under Labour" is a strange repost. According to the BCS/CSEW it was already falling (if only for a year) under Major. In any case, it hardly takes away from the large fall in almost every type of crime under the present government. (Sexual offences make up the most important exception, but they are subject to the most uncertainty about whether reported crimes reflect the true extent of crime, and so forth.)
I would however agree that there were cynics in 2010 who would not believe crime was falling (assisted by the then Opposition) and there will be cynics in 2015 (assisted by the then Opposition). The ones in 2015 will be even more wrong than the ones in 2010.
I guessed 30 and thought I was way under until I noticed their figure for gun deaths includes suicides and accidents. The right figure is 31. Do I get a star?
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
Labour Press Office are busily tweeting pix of things available to buy from the various shops at #cpc13 and equating them with the weekly benefit of a Marriage Tax Break. It's desperate enough to provoke this!
"Labour say Osborne Help to work scheme "not big enoguh (sic) or bold enough" #cpc13"
(Liam Byrne, I think)
Labour should try for "actively harmful" wherever they can, it makes for a better line. I'd say there was sufficient latitide to sustain it.
Found it:
"This scheme that we've heard today will only actually affect 2% of people on the dole. So our perspective on this is very, very simple, we don't think it's big enough or bold enough."
What an awful line to take.
We shouldn't bother because it's 2%? When the Tories could use the same figure to show it was only targetting the cases most in need?
Those targeted by a new workfare scheme to be announced by chancellor George Osborne today make up just 5 per cent of JSA claims and 2.5 per cent of the total benefits bill, according to figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
Yes, they are absolutely barmy. Never mind the murders, the figures for gun-related suicides and accidents are astronomical in the US. It is astounding that few Americans seem to be terribly fussed about this.
In my mind it is inconceivable that the Conservatives won't pick up up some support between now and the election - the question is how much Labour will retain. I'm sure Clegg will be hoping that the 2015 campaign will be good for the Lib Dems because at the moment most people have written them off but may take a fresh look at election time.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's inconceivable that they'll fail to clear 31%. Improbable, yes. One conceivable way for it to happen is if we get a Faragasm this time where we got a Cleggasm last time. I wouldn't say that's actually likely - most likely UKIP will get squeezed well below 10 - but it's not hard to imagine, given how unimpressed the voters are with the leaders of the main parties.
Yes, it does depend on how much (good) attention Ukip get during the campaign - unless they have success in going under the radar? But if Farage somehow gets into the TV debates then all bets would be off.
This is going to sound totally crazy, but does Farage really want to be in the debates? Isn't the danger of debating the other party leaders, in a staged and artificial format, that he will end up looking, well, like just another politician?
And does he really want to be put in a position where he has to defend the combination of UKIP's pension and tax policies? It might be quite possible for the coalition to paint him as irresponsible for promising more money for retirees (more spending!) and workers (lower taxes!)
Worse, just the very act of being on stage defending policies in the same format as the Libs and the Cons and the Labs make him... just another politician.
UKIP's best chance surely has to be "we are different". The debates run the risk of making them appear on the same level as other politicians.
(Of course, this only works if UKIP is excluded from the debates. They can't really refuse to go if they get an invite.)
Farage can likely hold his own in such a debate. But, I think it suits him just as much to be shut out as to be included.
As someone who has lurked here regularly since about three months before the last election, but with little time to get involved, could I just say what a delight this site has been in recent days without the presence of the poster known as Tim. The last I saw, he was challenged to come up with a truly meaningful post for his 10,000th post but either it was of such stupendous moment that it got him instantly banned or he finally realised that he never could produce anything of the required quality and probably never had done so. The result is as if the sun has come out from behind the clouds and this site is immeasurably improved by his absence. I had come to think of Tim and his unhealthy obsessions with horses, Osborne, Cameron, etc as being "The One True FOP", FOP, of course, being an acronym for Frantically Obsessive Poster, though I'm sure others may have their own versions as to what at least the first two letters might stand for. Here's praying for more Tim-free days. Keep up the good work!
You are very welcome here, Dimitry, but in fairness to Tim I should point out that betting is of the Site's essence, and Tim is one of the few serious punters on here. He is also one of the best, as regulars will know.
I know he could be aggravating, but I can forgive a man a lot in return for a decent tip.
Since we're dealing in anecdotes, let me share one.
My father, now he's retired (sort of), does various different jobs. Among these, he works voluntarily as a driver for a small charity. Until the charity changed its systems recently, he used to be paired with prisoners from a local prison nearing the end of long sentences as part of their rehabilitation. I would have thought that particular group were as hard a group of potential employees to work with as any that you could find. As far as I can see, this worked pretty well.
Interestingly enough, though, there are lots of great charities working in the area and lots of employers willing to give them a chance because they see them as motivated employees (at least those who have made the commitment to a change of life rather than become institutionalised)
BTW, for those interested, we had our latest funding round last week. 245 applications - tough to narrow down. We managed to expand it outside London, which was a strategic aim, so are going to be partnering with a very motivated and effective team in Sunderland to help them. Will publish the full list once we have spoken to the recipients (and those who didn't make the cut for some reason)
I think it's very hard to speculate where we'll be in 2018. From UKIP's point of view, I think that a Conservative minority government, or Con/Lib Dem coalition, would be the best result at the next election.
If that's the outcome, I could certainly see UKIP having 1,000 + local councillors by 2018.
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
Yes, they are absolutely barmy. Never mind the murders, the figures for gun-related suicides and accidents are astronomical in the US. It is astounding that few Americans seem to be terribly fussed about this.
It's either arm yourself or put your trust in the state to ensure the killer doesn't have one.
More gun deaths -> even more reason for me to have a gun (US) More gun deaths -> even more reason for them not to have a gun (UK)
@TSE - What's wrong with those figures? Looks about right for the most intractable cases.
My point is that there's a risk we demonise anyone who is paid JSA/unemployed.
Not doing the right thing because the usual suspects will attempt to say you're 'demonising' people is the road to ruin - in fact, it's exactly why welfare got into the mess it is in.
Interesting development - how many don't already? Mine shuts at 1830.
Richard @richie_1994wale The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt will announce GP surgeries will open from 8am to 8pm in England. Will Welsh Labour follow this policy? #CPC
"you are right actually - but it must be some form of 'ism' to say that in the first place. It's a double-standard or PC or something. I dare say if wealthy Harriet or the other Shad Cab millionaires made similar demands the 'feeling' wouldn't be the same. So it must just be the 'brand' of Tory or Labour which determines what is fair and reasonable .... funny that"
Labour millionaires don't see the world like that so wouldn't make those kinds of demands on people less fortunate than themselves or they'd be Tories
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
Yes, they are absolutely barmy. Never mind the murders, the figures for gun-related suicides and accidents are astronomical in the US. It is astounding that few Americans seem to be terribly fussed about this.
In this respect, Richard, it is very much autres pays autres moeurs.
Even so, and making every allowance for culture and history, there is an extraordinary knuckle-headed resistance to even the simplest and most common-sense reforms. I love the States but it does affect my attitude. Last time I visited I trespassed innocently enough whilst walking the dog (Upper NY State, near Lake Placid - not one of the wilder and wackier parts), I was warned off by a gun-toting Mum. It''s a bit worrying.
@TSE - What's wrong with those figures? Looks about right for the most intractable cases.
My point is that there's a risk we demonise anyone who is paid JSA/unemployed.
It's not piffle, Plato, it's a relevant political risk. The government's line on this should be clearer, but as we can see LeftFootForward and Labour are helping them out.
@TSE - What's wrong with those figures? Looks about right for the most intractable cases.
My point is that there's a risk we demonise anyone who is paid JSA/unemployed.
Not doing the right thing because the usual suspects will attempt to say you're 'demonising' people is the road to ruin - in fact, it's exactly why welfare got into the mess it is in.
Richard, there are better ways of achieving that without resorting to the briefings and spin that leads to the headlines we saw today.
It is astounding that few Americans seem to be terribly fussed about this.
I'm not supporting America's weapons lobby, but I think we underestimate the importance of geography here. Many Americans live in rural or semi-rural locations where you can't just rustle up a squad car. In these places, you are the law.
Even the cities tend to be very large, sprawling affairs where the nearest copper is not within easy reach.
Surely the key is the calibre of the weapons available. Even on a remote ranch you shouldn't need an assault rifle or a machine gun to ensure your safety.
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
Yes, they are absolutely barmy. Never mind the murders, the figures for gun-related suicides and accidents are astronomical in the US. It is astounding that few Americans seem to be terribly fussed about this.
I'm sure it's been quoted here before but it's like that line from the film Barcelona about how many people die by gun shootings in America as compared to the rest of the world. It just means we're better shots.
@TSE - What's wrong with those figures? Looks about right for the most intractable cases.
My point is that there's a risk we demonise anyone who is paid JSA/unemployed.
I would take the opposite view as the objective, to reduce the current level demonisation of those on JSA / unemployment.
By helping those on JSA / long term unemployed to a greater extent than we do now we can aim to get more of them back into a main stream lifestyle. They are more likely to be demonised by remaining in their current situation than if they are seen to be accepting the help that is on offer, if they are seen to contribute to the locality by volunteering and their numbers are seen to reduce as a result of the successful intervention.
Of course, it could all go pear shaped and be an abject failure, resulting in greater dollops derision and anger from the tabloids.
The Populus weighting adjustments for Party ID are getting beyond a joke . The UKIP figure before adjustment was 19% . Clearly weighting for Party ID and/or Past Vote is a useful toll to increase accuracy and cope with small sampling errors but at this magnitude it is ridiculous .
The Populus poll is a useful reminder to those excited by yesterday's YG of just how fickle the polls can be and how inanely stupid it is to project future GE results upon them.
I don't think there is a problem in asking the long-term unemployed to do some work. As others have noted, it helps to get then into a routine, gives them some experience and so on; and 30 hours is not at all unreasonable. The two issues that would need to be thought through are: (1) the work should not be the kind of stuff that is normally done by people doing community orders (cleaning graffiti off walls etc), that makes it seem like punishment, not help; and (2) the work should not be replacing stuff done by people who are currently employed.
I have many more issues with just asking people to go to the job centre each and every day. What does that achieve? It just looks like punishment. This is reinforced by the briefings that have clearly been made prior to the announcement of the policy. The Tories really do not help themselves on this.
I don't think there is a problem in asking the long-term unemployed to do some work. As others have noted, it helps to get then into a routine, gives them some experience and so on; and 30 hours is not at all unreasonable. The two issues that would need to be thought through are: (1) the work should not be the kind of stuff that is normally done by people doing community orders (cleaning graffiti off walls etc); and the work should not be replacing stuff done by people who are currently employed.
I have many more issues with just asking people to go to the job centre all day. What does that achieve? It just looks like punishment. This is reinforced by the briefings that have clearly been made prior to the announcement of the policy. The Tories really do not help themselves on this.
Finally, why wait two years?
I think the two years is when they've completed their two year work programme.
That populus poll fits in what I thought Ed's speech might do.
Galvanise support for Lab and the Tories and the Lib Dems and UKIP get squeezed like a Chippendale's bum on a hen night.
How does UKIP 7% compare to previous polls?
They were on 9% a week ago.
It should be noted, Populus' methodology is unfavourable to UKIP
The trend is the important thing, which is no doubt what prompted your original post. My theory on UKIP is that having won people over (people who voted some other way in 2010) these people's support has waned, but because they made a big leap to join UKIP they haven't yet switched back, even if their current support for UKIP would have been insufficient to have joined in the first place.
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
Yes, they are absolutely barmy. Never mind the murders, the figures for gun-related suicides and accidents are astronomical in the US. It is astounding that few Americans seem to be terribly fussed about this.
I'm sure it's been quoted here before but it's like that line from the film Barcelona about how many people die by gun shootings in America as compared to the rest of the world. It just means we're better shots.
Of course stabbings are far more common in the UK than in the US. We're not less homicidal, just have less access to guns.
The Populus weighting adjustments for Party ID are getting beyond a joke . The UKIP figure before adjustment was 19% . Clearly weighting for Party ID and/or Past Vote is a useful toll to increase accuracy and cope with small sampling errors but at this magnitude it is ridiculous .
When are you comparing to? TSE's numbers are different
That's better for the Tories than Yougov! When was the field work?
Fieldwork 27th-29th . Note prior to the UKIP ID weighting adjustment , the figures were Lab 37 Con 30 LD 8 UKIP 19 Who knows what the true figures are ?
I don't think there is a problem in asking the long-term unemployed to do some work. As others have noted, it helps to get then into a routine, gives them some experience and so on; and 30 hours is not at all unreasonable. The two issues that would need to be thought through are: (1) the work should not be the kind of stuff that is normally done by people doing community orders (cleaning graffiti off walls etc); and the work should not be replacing stuff done by people who are currently employed.
I have many more issues with just asking people to go to the job centre all day. What does that achieve? It just looks like punishment. This is reinforced by the briefings that have clearly been made prior to the announcement of the policy. The Tories really do not help themselves on this.
Finally, why wait two years?
I think the two years is when they've completed their two year work programme.
As I understand it the Work programme things are not really working, so to speak.
All in all this is a relatively minor issue, affecting relatively few people. It does make you wonder why the Tories have chosen to make such a song and dance about it. What I'd like to hear them say every now and again is that most people on JSA are on it for a relatively short while, because they return to work pretty fast. Just as it would be good to hear them say that most benefit payments go either to pensioners or to those in work. I have a feeling that such a simple change of emphasis would do wonders for them.
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
Yes, they are absolutely barmy. Never mind the murders, the figures for gun-related suicides and accidents are astronomical in the US. It is astounding that few Americans seem to be terribly fussed about this.
I'm sure it's been quoted here before but it's like that line from the film Barcelona about how many people die by gun shootings in America as compared to the rest of the world. It just means we're better shots.
Of course stabbings are far more common in the UK than in the US. We're not less homicidal, just have less access to guns.
We do appear to be less homicidal (by a factor of four):
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
Yes, they are absolutely barmy. Never mind the murders, the figures for gun-related suicides and accidents are astronomical in the US. It is astounding that few Americans seem to be terribly fussed about this.
I'm sure it's been quoted here before but it's like that line from the film Barcelona about how many people die by gun shootings in America as compared to the rest of the world. It just means we're better shots.
Of course stabbings are far more common in the UK than in the US. We're not less homicidal, just have less access to guns.
That's what makes the argument about the relationship between gun ownership and gun homicides utterly overwhelming (as if it needed labouring.)
If you look at non-gun murder, the US is broadly in line with most wealthy and democratic countries. But as regards gun-murder, it is more in line with impoverished and failed States.
There is nothing that can possibly explain this situation other than lax gun laws- but try telling that to opponents of such laws.
I don't think there is a problem in asking the long-term unemployed to do some work. As others have noted, it helps to get then into a routine, gives them some experience and so on; and 30 hours is not at all unreasonable. The two issues that would need to be thought through are: (1) the work should not be the kind of stuff that is normally done by people doing community orders (cleaning graffiti off walls etc); and the work should not be replacing stuff done by people who are currently employed.
I have many more issues with just asking people to go to the job centre all day. What does that achieve? It just looks like punishment. This is reinforced by the briefings that have clearly been made prior to the announcement of the policy. The Tories really do not help themselves on this.
Finally, why wait two years?
I think the two years is when they've completed their two year work programme.
As I understand it the Work programme things are not really working, so to speak.
All in all this is a relatively minor issue, affecting relatively few people. It does make you wonder why the Tories have chosen to make such a song and dance about it. What I'd like to hear them say every now and again is that most people on JSA are on it for a relatively short while, because they return to work pretty fast. Just as it would be good to hear them say that most benefit payments go either to pensioners or to those in work. I have a feeling that such a simple change of emphasis would do wonders for them.
Whether the Work Programme is working or not is mostly a political thing that depnds on expectations of it. Labour would naturally compare it to the system that do or did have in place and forecast a better performance; the Tories compare it to having nothing and/or doubt anything else would have worked better.
I don't think there is a problem in asking the long-term unemployed to do some work. As others have noted, it helps to get then into a routine, gives them some experience and so on; and 30 hours is not at all unreasonable. The two issues that would need to be thought through are: (1) the work should not be the kind of stuff that is normally done by people doing community orders (cleaning graffiti off walls etc); and the work should not be replacing stuff done by people who are currently employed.
I have many more issues with just asking people to go to the job centre all day. What does that achieve? It just looks like punishment. This is reinforced by the briefings that have clearly been made prior to the announcement of the policy. The Tories really do not help themselves on this.
Finally, why wait two years?
I think the two years is when they've completed their two year work programme.
As I understand it the Work programme things are not really working, so to speak.
All in all this is a relatively minor issue, affecting relatively few people. It does make you wonder why the Tories have chosen to make such a song and dance about it. What I'd like to hear them say every now and again is that most people on JSA are on it for a relatively short while, because they return to work pretty fast. Just as it would be good to hear them say that most benefit payments go either to pensioners or to those in work. I have a feeling that such a simple change of emphasis would do wonders for them.
The work programme has experienced some disasters
A total of 130,000 of the 1.2million people who have joined the Work Programme since June 2011 are now in employment.
Despite significant improvements, the scheme has missed every target which the government set for getting people into jobs.
In half the areas where the scheme is being run, people would have been more likely to get a job if they hadn't taken part in the programme.
Backed Melzer to beat Nishikori at 3.9 in the Japan Open. They've met thrice, with Melzer leading 2:1. Nishikori won the most recent match, but that was on clay and Melzer's won both their hard court encounters to date (same surface as their match tomorrow). Melzer also has more impressive recent form.
Backed Melzer to beat Nishikori at 3.9 in the Japan Open. They've met thrice, with Melzer leading 2:1. Nishikori won the most recent match, but that was on clay and Melzer's won both their hard court encounters to date (same surface as their match tomorrow). Melzer also has more impressive recent form.
As I understand it the Work programme things are not really working, so to speak.
All in all this is a relatively minor issue, affecting relatively few people. It does make you wonder why the Tories have chosen to make such a song and dance about it. What I'd like to hear them say every now and again is that most people on JSA are on it for a relatively short while, because they return to work pretty fast. Just as it would be good to hear them say that most benefit payments go either to pensioners or to those in work. I have a feeling that such a simple change of emphasis would do wonders for them.
The work programme has experienced some disasters
A total of 130,000 of the 1.2million people who have joined the Work Programme since June 2011 are now in employment.
Despite significant improvements, the scheme has missed every target which the government set for getting people into jobs.
In half the areas where the scheme is being run, people would have been more likely to get a job if they hadn't taken part in the programme.
"Today’s excitement reflects the fact that the improvement has continued in the first part of year three, and both JSA groups are now hitting success rates well above the minimum."
If it continues the Work Programme is going to look better and better, from a low base.
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
Yes, they are absolutely barmy. Never mind the murders, the figures for gun-related suicides and accidents are astronomical in the US. It is astounding that few Americans seem to be terribly fussed about this.
I'm sure it's been quoted here before but it's like that line from the film Barcelona about how many people die by gun shootings in America as compared to the rest of the world. It just means we're better shots.
Of course stabbings are far more common in the UK than in the US. We're not less homicidal, just have less access to guns.
We do appear to be less homicidal (by a factor of four):
Well I liked the second half of that speech - the first section was a bit dull but lots to chew on.
I liked the observation that the rise in tax thresholds is the equiv to a 10% rise in the minimum wage needs to be shouted loudly. And the notion of running a surplus in the next Parly.
"because they made a big leap to join UKIP they haven't yet switched back"
That's always the risk with switchers, and Labour could suffer too. When I made the leap from Labour to LD, I began to see the darker side of Labour and so didn't switch back when Kinnock began to clean our Militant. Not that I'm overwhelmed by the LDs, but I'll get that out of my system by voting Ukip in the Euros.
There is nothing that can possibly explain this situation other than lax gun laws- but try telling that to opponents of such laws.
Laxer gun laws may lead to a higher murder rate, but that is beside the point. It is an illegitimate way of reducing the murder rate to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty. Firearms' prohibition does this by taking away the right to possess and to use firearms from the vast majority of law-abiding users because a tiny minority misuse firearms. As such, attempting to prohibit generally the possession of firearms is a policy which ignores the means used provided the right end is achieved, which is a species of tyranny.
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour The Tories new specific fiscal mandate will be published in detail next year. UK ran a surplus in 7 of last 50 years and only 3 of last 20.
Assuming this is petrol / diesel, it should be interesting.
The warmists might object to this.
Well... not really. I would rather that there was a uniform carbon tax applied to all sources of carbon dioxide emissions, but at the moment we have a very uneven taxation system.
So for a domestic return flight within the UK one is charged £26 in Air Passenger Duty, and the jet fuel is not taxed at all, and a return flight from, say, Exeter to Edinburgh would emit about 0.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per passenger. So the tax is levied at a carbon price of roughly £130 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
For a return journey from Exeter to Edinburgh by a relatively fuel-efficient diesel car, would take about 72 litres of diesel, currently charged at £0.5795 per litre in fuel duty [with VAT on top]. This 72 litres of diesel would emit 0.193 tonnes of carbon dioxide at a cost of £41.72 in fuel duty (plus VAT of about £16.80). So the tax is levied at a carbon price of roughly £303 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
If your objective is to reduce pollution you want the tax per unit of pollution to be equal - I suspect that the tax on motor fuel per tonne of carbon dioxide is the highest of any source of carbon dioxide in the economy, so the environmental argument would be to increase taxation elsewhere, rather than to increase fuel duty.
Assuming this is petrol / diesel, it should be interesting.
The warmists might object to this.
Well... not really. I would rather that there was a uniform carbon tax applied to all sources of carbon dioxide emissions, but at the moment we have a very uneven taxation system.
So for a domestic return flight within the UK one is charged £26 in Air Passenger Duty, and the jet fuel is not taxed at all, and a return flight from, say, Exeter to Edinburgh would emit about 0.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per passenger. So the tax is levied at a carbon price of roughly £130 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
For a return journey from Exeter to Edinburgh by a relatively fuel-efficient diesel car, would take about 72 litres of diesel, currently charged at £0.5795 per litre in fuel duty [with VAT on top]. This 72 litres of diesel would emit 0.193 tonnes of carbon dioxide at a cost of £41.72 in fuel duty (plus VAT of about £16.80). So the tax is levied at a carbon price of roughly £303 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
If your objective is to reduce pollution you want the tax per unit of pollution to be equal - I suspect that the tax on motor fuel per tonne of carbon dioxide is the highest of any source of carbon dioxide in the economy, so the environmental argument would be to increase taxation elsewhere, rather than to increase fuel duty.
"...What I'd like to see is an informal alliance between supporters of both parties whereby they agree to vote for whichever party's candidate is best-placed to win in their constituency. That is, a jointly-organised tactical voting advisory service. This arrangement wouldn't require the blessing of the party leaders – it would be a bottom-up initiative rather than top-down. All that's needed would be a Unite the Right website that informed voters of both parties who the candidate is in each constituency that has the best chance. My plan is to band together with some like-minded individuals and set this up and if you'd like to get involved you can email me at conukip@gmail.com.
Now, there are numerous objections to this proposal. For one thing, the upside for the Conservatives is more obvious than it is for Ukip. As Lord Ashcroft pointed out earlier this month, Conservative MPs are currently on course to lose their seats in at least 32 CON/LAB marginals thanks to the surge in Ukip support. If some of these Ukippers could be persuaded to vote tactically, those seats might be saved. But is there a similar upside for Ukip?
If the Unite the Right website was to base its advice on the 2010 election result – and nothing else – the answer would clearly be no. But, of course, it won't. Our aim will be to predict as accurately as possible which of the two parties' candidates has the best chance of winning in each constituency and, to do that, we'll need to take other factors into account, such as the results of by-elections, local elections and the European election, as well as the most recent polling data. That will mean there'll be numerous constituencies in which we'll be advising Conservative supporters to vote Ukip in 2015. >> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100238637/unite-the-right-conservative-and-ukip-supporters-must-put-aside-the-narcissism-of-small-differences/
More importantly, unemployment is not all "the fault of immigrants". If all immigration stopped tomorrow (and all the immigrants went home), this would not transform the c. 7% of the workforce who are unemployed into productive members of society.
Remember this:- both employers and immigrants are economically rational people. If the employer is not hiring a Brit, there is probably a good reason for this. Getting rid of the immigrant does not make the Brit any better value an employee, it merely means that the choice of staff available to the employer is smaller.
I always think that immigration is a symptom of other problems. Specifically, it is the problems of poor education/training; and a misguided system of welfare that means that marginal tax rates (once removal of benefits are included) are higher for those at the bottom of the pyramid, than those at the top.
Exactly , they get jobs because of their attitude, etc. They are willing to work hard and better themselves. Sadly lots of people in this country believe the world owes them a lifestyle , have no self respect and the fact they get money for nothing only encourages more of the same behaviour. I am afraid all the examples I have seen they get signed off sick , get the cash and turn up every couple of years for a check , have houses paid while they often stay with other subsidised partners , and whinge about not getting enough , or not going to work for £6 an hour etc. May not be everybody but there are an awful lot of them.
George Osborne @George_Osborne Delighted TNT Post are today announcing 1000 new jobs in #Manchester, with specific focus on helping the long term unemployed back to work
I voted Tory in 1987 for Mrs T because Sue Lawley was extremely rude to Norman Tebbit - I even knocked on doors for them.
I thought she was the medicine required at the time - times have changed and think Mr Cameron is the best on offer by a long chalk despite being agin him on greenie/nannying stuff
I do find your grievance agenda rather peculiar - I'm from a working class but very aspirational Geordie background - that you choose to indulge in name calling rather a lot makes me wonder who you'd be happy with.
If you really believe in aspiration you would have a grievance yourself against Cameron running a chumocracy. Or for that matter his attempt to boost house prices and thus damaging economic and social mobility.
And I would suggest you look at your own record before you accuse anyone of 'name calling'.
Personally I judge politicians on their record, for this reason I find the present generation most unsatisfactory.
I sometimes wonder Plato if you judge politicians on any metric greater than which party leader you would like as a husband.
I voted Tory in 1987 for Mrs T because Sue Lawley was extremely rude to Norman Tebbit - I even knocked on doors for them.
I thought she was the medicine required at the time - times have changed and think Mr Cameron is the best on offer by a long chalk despite being agin him on greenie/nannying stuff
I do find your grievance agenda rather peculiar - I'm from a working class but very aspirational Geordie background - that you choose to indulge in name calling rather a lot makes me wonder who you'd be happy with.
If you really believe in aspiration you would have a grievance yourself against Cameron running a chumocracy. Or for that matter his attempt to boost house prices and thus damaging economic and social mobility.
And I would suggest you look at your own record before you accuse anyone of 'name calling'.
Personally I judge politicians on their record, for this reason I find the present generation most unsatisfactory.
I sometimes wonder Plato if you judge politicians on any metric greater than which party leader you would like as a husband.
What a marvellously patronising post - I don't see politics through your prism of never ending references to Notting Hill or chums or whatever. I never call any of them toffs or posh or common as I can't stand class war and its hangers on.
"As someone who has lurked here regularly since about three months before the last election, but with little time to get involved, could I just say what a delight this site has been in recent days without the presence of the poster known as Tim"
If you have been lurking for three years and your first post is to criticize a long time poster then I suggest you go back to lurking.
There are enough glove puppets and trolls without another one.
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour The Tories new specific fiscal mandate will be published in detail next year. UK ran a surplus in 7 of last 50 years and only 3 of last 20.
3 in the last 20 is better than 7 in the last 50. Which party was in government in these 3 years ?
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour The Tories new specific fiscal mandate will be published in detail next year. UK ran a surplus in 7 of last 50 years and only 3 of last 20.
3 in the last 20 is better than 7 in the last 50. Which party was in government in these 3 years ?
''Is the hatred of Ukip supporters for David Cameron really so great that they'd prefer to sacrifice what may well be our last chance to extract ourselves from a United States of Europe rather than see him get re-elected?''
George has been assisted by relatively stable input prices albeit close to historic highs. The volatility of Brent Crude spot prices in 2013 has been at its lowest level since EIA records began in 1987.
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
Labour, and it seems some LibDems, seem to think that just paying them off and leaving them festering in this cycle of despair is somehow compassionate. It's not.
It is possible that George Osborne is a sensible person who realises that the long term unemployed consists of a wide range of people as you describe but sadly he is not being sensible when he seems to want to speak in a soundbite manner to people like malcolmg categorising most of the unemployed as wasters who fit not my description but that of a number of posters on here .
I did not say a majority were wasters, I said there were many and the system allows them to do nothing and have their lifestyle paid by people who work hard to live. That should not be allowed, anyone can have spells of unemployment but it should not be allowed to go beyond 6 months without them having to contribute to society or lose the free money, any sane person would want help , structure , training etc to get back to work , have self respect, etc.
Well, most Ad's that you see are served to you by Google Adsense, based on the website's that you visit (cookies are dropped on to your computer everytime an ad is served. Google then know's what your interested in and serves more Ad's based on these subjects)
So Mr Eagles, what website's are you visiting when your not on PB?
Ranting job applicant with law degree on Sky TV now. She is claiming that she has being applying for 16-17 jobs per day from her base in Luton.
Given the opportunity of a nationwide broadcast of her predicament on a news channel, I would have thought she would have made some effort to sound employable. Instead she comes across as the kind of person no one would want to share an office with.
Had she got the tone right and made people sympathise with her she would now be receiving tens of job offers.
These 'long term unemployed' are going to very hard to place in work.
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
Yes, they are absolutely barmy. Never mind the murders, the figures for gun-related suicides and accidents are astronomical in the US. It is astounding that few Americans seem to be terribly fussed about this.
I'm sure it's been quoted here before but it's like that line from the film Barcelona about how many people die by gun shootings in America as compared to the rest of the world. It just means we're better shots.
Of course stabbings are far more common in the UK than in the US. We're not less homicidal, just have less access to guns.
That's what makes the argument about the relationship between gun ownership and gun homicides utterly overwhelming (as if it needed labouring.)
If you look at non-gun murder, the US is broadly in line with most wealthy and democratic countries. But as regards gun-murder, it is more in line with impoverished and failed States.
There is nothing that can possibly explain this situation other than lax gun laws- but try telling that to opponents of such laws.
I'm calling you on your biased and tendentious use of language - "gun murder" indeed. How do you know that all the killings are unlawful acts and not done in self defence, as I believe "intentional homicide" covers both?
Some people after all believe that the fact a potential victim was able to successfully defend themselves is a feature, not a bug, of US gun laws ("when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" and all that) and should not be used as an argument against gun laws.
Ranting job applicant with law degree on Sky TV now. She is claiming that she has being applying for 16-17 jobs per day from her base in Luton.
Given the opportunity of a nationwide broadcast of her predicament on a news channel, I would have thought she would have made some effort to sound employable. Instead she comes across as the kind of person no one would want to share an office with.
Had she got the tone right and made people sympathise with her she would now be receiving tens of job offers.
These 'long term unemployed' are going to very hard to place in work.
I applied for six jobs starting after I graduate in law and they took me days each. At least a day, if I'd really knuckled down (although I accept they may have had longer application processes than hers). 16-17 jobs per day is an astounding number, it really is. It would take me longer than that to write as much as a covering letter for each one, even if they were CV+covering letter.
"...What I'd like to see is an informal alliance between supporters of both parties whereby they agree to vote for whichever party's candidate is best-placed to win in their constituency. That is, a jointly-organised tactical voting advisory service. This arrangement wouldn't require the blessing of the party leaders – it would be a bottom-up initiative rather than top-down. All that's needed would be a Unite the Right website that informed voters of both parties who the candidate is in each constituency that has the best chance. My plan is to band together with some like-minded individuals and set this up and if you'd like to get involved you can email me at conukip@gmail.com.
Now, there are numerous objections to this proposal. For one thing, the upside for the Conservatives is more obvious than it is for Ukip. As Lord Ashcroft pointed out earlier this month, Conservative MPs are currently on course to lose their seats in at least 32 CON/LAB marginals thanks to the surge in Ukip support. If some of these Ukippers could be persuaded to vote tactically, those seats might be saved. But is there a similar upside for Ukip?
If the Unite the Right website was to base its advice on the 2010 election result – and nothing else – the answer would clearly be no. But, of course, it won't. Our aim will be to predict as accurately as possible which of the two parties' candidates has the best chance of winning in each constituency and, to do that, we'll need to take other factors into account, such as the results of by-elections, local elections and the European election, as well as the most recent polling data. That will mean there'll be numerous constituencies in which we'll be advising Conservative supporters to vote Ukip in 2015. >> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100238637/unite-the-right-conservative-and-ukip-supporters-must-put-aside-the-narcissism-of-small-differences/
Rubbish, in my opinion. Anything which entrenches UKIP support is a much better deal for UKIP and will mean a prospect that the Tories crash and burn.
"She is claiming that she has being applying for 16-17 jobs per day from her base in Luton."
So she is only spending between 30 mins and an hour on each one...Maybe if she took longer filling in the application forms....or maybe she is just bulls##ting! I know which of the two I believe.
It happens. A friend of mine's a teacher in her early forties, and she's been asked for I.D. recently whilst out and about with me.
She also had some fun whilst visiting another school, when another teacher wanted to know why she was out of uniform.
The thing is, she's changed. I've known her for over twenty years, and her face and body have changed slightly. But aside from a few grey hairs, she hasn't really aged.
On the other hand, I had to give ID when thirteen in order to get a child's ticket on a train ...
Ranting job applicant with law degree on Sky TV now. She is claiming that she has being applying for 16-17 jobs per day from her base in Luton.
Given the opportunity of a nationwide broadcast of her predicament on a news channel, I would have thought she would have made some effort to sound employable. Instead she comes across as the kind of person no one would want to share an office with.
Had she got the tone right and made people sympathise with her she would now be receiving tens of job offers.
These 'long term unemployed' are going to very hard to place in work.
It makes one wonder how she has time to appear on Sky News. Was this filmed at her home in Luton? Genuine question as I'm at my desk and don't have a TV here.
Comments
In the case you mention, there is help available. Are you sure he's never taken it? As far as I'm aware, there's no way you can force an addict to drop their addiction. It has to be up to them. But what happens if they reject all those offers of help, if they cannot beat the addiction that bedevils them? If they yo-yo in and out of rehab?
But there's also a danger in assuming that everyone is in that boat. Many are not. As I wrote below, with some people I used to know (and still know in two cases), the problem is a lack of confidence. One was unemployed under Thatcher. He's still unemployed.
The Conservatives did not help him. Labour did not help him. But in both cases the help was there, if he had wanted it. The poor guy has absolutely no confidence that he can better himself. He's a genuinely nice guy. But I cannot forgive him for the fact that his kids grew up with that same sort of attitude.
More generally It strikes me a slight sniff of economic recovery (which I suspect Osborne will inject a dose of realism to shortly) has caused certain people to abandon common sense and reveal their true and not very appetising colours. I would have thought Lib Dems should be praising the coalitions achievements to date. They won't have much else to cling onto come 2015.
My father, now he's retired (sort of), does various different jobs. Among these, he works voluntarily as a driver for a small charity. Until the charity changed its systems recently, he used to be paired with prisoners from a local prison nearing the end of long sentences as part of their rehabilitation. I would have thought that particular group were as hard a group of potential employees to work with as any that you could find. As far as I can see, this worked pretty well.
Incidentally, the equivalent figure in the USA (homicides) is 7,000. I recently wasted an evening on the Politico blog trying to argue that this astronomic figure might somehow be related to the laxity of the local gun laws. You might think that was self-evident, but no.....
You think arguing with Tim is bad?!
RT @LibDemPress: @labourpress The Labour Press Office can do better than this.
"This scheme that we've heard today will only actually affect 2% of people on the dole. So our perspective on this is very, very simple, we don't think it's big enough or bold enough."
What an awful line to take.
We shouldn't bother because it's 2%? When the Tories could use the same figure to show it was only targetting the cases most in need?
Those targeted by a new workfare scheme to be announced by chancellor George Osborne today make up just 5 per cent of JSA claims and 2.5 per cent of the total benefits bill, according to figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/09/those-targeted-by-new-workfare-scheme-make-up-just-5-of-claiments/
I know he could be aggravating, but I can forgive a man a lot in return for a decent tip.
BTW, for those interested, we had our latest funding round last week. 245 applications - tough to narrow down. We managed to expand it outside London, which was a strategic aim, so are going to be partnering with a very motivated and effective team in Sunderland to help them. Will publish the full list once we have spoken to the recipients (and those who didn't make the cut for some reason)
If that's the outcome, I could certainly see UKIP having 1,000 + local councillors by 2018.
More gun deaths -> even more reason for me to have a gun (US)
More gun deaths -> even more reason for them not to have a gun (UK)
Richard @richie_1994wale
The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt will announce GP surgeries will open from 8am to 8pm in England. Will Welsh Labour follow this policy? #CPC
Demonise. Piffle.
Labour millionaires don't see the world like that so wouldn't make those kinds of demands on people less fortunate than themselves or they'd be Tories
Lab 39 (+2)
Con 36 (+2)
LD 11 (-1)
UKIP 7 (-2)
Even so, and making every allowance for culture and history, there is an extraordinary knuckle-headed resistance to even the simplest and most common-sense reforms. I love the States but it does affect my attitude. Last time I visited I trespassed innocently enough whilst walking the dog (Upper NY State, near Lake Placid - not one of the wilder and wackier parts), I was warned off by a gun-toting Mum. It''s a bit worrying.
Galvanise support for Lab and the Tories and the Lib Dems and UKIP get squeezed like a Chippendale's bum on a hen night.
I'm not supporting America's weapons lobby, but I think we underestimate the importance of geography here. Many Americans live in rural or semi-rural locations where you can't just rustle up a squad car. In these places, you are the law.
Even the cities tend to be very large, sprawling affairs where the nearest copper is not within easy reach.
Surely the key is the calibre of the weapons available. Even on a remote ranch you shouldn't need an assault rifle or a machine gun to ensure your safety.
By helping those on JSA / long term unemployed to a greater extent than we do now we can aim to get more of them back into a main stream lifestyle. They are more likely to be demonised by remaining in their current situation than if they are seen to be accepting the help that is on offer, if they are seen to contribute to the locality by volunteering and their numbers are seen to reduce as a result of the successful intervention.
Of course, it could all go pear shaped and be an abject failure, resulting in greater dollops derision and anger from the tabloids.
It should be noted, Populus' methodology is unfavourable to UKIP
Lab no change
Con plus 3
LD minus 3
UKIP minus 2
I have many more issues with just asking people to go to the job centre each and every day. What does that achieve? It just looks like punishment. This is reinforced by the briefings that have clearly been made prior to the announcement of the policy. The Tories really do not help themselves on this.
Finally, why wait two years?
Lab 37 Con 30 LD 8 UKIP 19
Who knows what the true figures are ?
All in all this is a relatively minor issue, affecting relatively few people. It does make you wonder why the Tories have chosen to make such a song and dance about it. What I'd like to hear them say every now and again is that most people on JSA are on it for a relatively short while, because they return to work pretty fast. Just as it would be good to hear them say that most benefit payments go either to pensioners or to those in work. I have a feeling that such a simple change of emphasis would do wonders for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
US intentional homicide rate: 4.7 per 100,000
UK intentional homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000
If you look at non-gun murder, the US is broadly in line with most wealthy and democratic countries. But as regards gun-murder, it is more in line with impoverished and failed States.
There is nothing that can possibly explain this situation other than lax gun laws- but try telling that to opponents of such laws.
fuel duty frozen.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-work-programme-improving-fails-sick-disabled/15918
is a contemporary look.
A total of 130,000 of the 1.2million people who have joined the Work Programme since June 2011 are now in employment.
Despite significant improvements, the scheme has missed every target which the government set for getting people into jobs.
In half the areas where the scheme is being run, people would have been more likely to get a job if they hadn't taken part in the programme.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/spending-review/10146659/5bn-Work-Programme-worse-than-doing-nothing.html
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2013/sep/17/us-gun-crime-map
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Dimitry.
Betting PostBacked Melzer to beat Nishikori at 3.9 in the Japan Open. They've met thrice, with Melzer leading 2:1. Nishikori won the most recent match, but that was on clay and Melzer's won both their hard court encounters to date (same surface as their match tomorrow). Melzer also has more impressive recent form.
"Today’s excitement reflects the fact that the improvement has continued in the first part of year three, and both JSA groups are now hitting success rates well above the minimum."
If it continues the Work Programme is going to look better and better, from a low base.
The warmists might object to this.
I liked the observation that the rise in tax thresholds is the equiv to a 10% rise in the minimum wage needs to be shouted loudly. And the notion of running a surplus in the next Parly.
"because they made a big leap to join UKIP they haven't yet switched back"
That's always the risk with switchers, and Labour could suffer too. When I made the leap from Labour to LD, I began to see the darker side of Labour and so didn't switch back when Kinnock began to clean our Militant. Not that I'm overwhelmed by the LDs, but I'll get that out of my system by voting Ukip in the Euros.
Maybe, he read the best rated comments in the Mail "under the line".
@patrickwintour
The Tories new specific fiscal mandate will be published in detail next year. UK ran a surplus in 7 of last 50 years and only 3 of last 20.
So for a domestic return flight within the UK one is charged £26 in Air Passenger Duty, and the jet fuel is not taxed at all, and a return flight from, say, Exeter to Edinburgh would emit about 0.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per passenger. So the tax is levied at a carbon price of roughly £130 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
For a return journey from Exeter to Edinburgh by a relatively fuel-efficient diesel car, would take about 72 litres of diesel, currently charged at £0.5795 per litre in fuel duty [with VAT on top]. This 72 litres of diesel would emit 0.193 tonnes of carbon dioxide at a cost of £41.72 in fuel duty (plus VAT of about £16.80). So the tax is levied at a carbon price of roughly £303 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
If your objective is to reduce pollution you want the tax per unit of pollution to be equal - I suspect that the tax on motor fuel per tonne of carbon dioxide is the highest of any source of carbon dioxide in the economy, so the environmental argument would be to increase taxation elsewhere, rather than to increase fuel duty.
Now, there are numerous objections to this proposal. For one thing, the upside for the Conservatives is more obvious than it is for Ukip. As Lord Ashcroft pointed out earlier this month, Conservative MPs are currently on course to lose their seats in at least 32 CON/LAB marginals thanks to the surge in Ukip support. If some of these Ukippers could be persuaded to vote tactically, those seats might be saved. But is there a similar upside for Ukip?
If the Unite the Right website was to base its advice on the 2010 election result – and nothing else – the answer would clearly be no. But, of course, it won't. Our aim will be to predict as accurately as possible which of the two parties' candidates has the best chance of winning in each constituency and, to do that, we'll need to take other factors into account, such as the results of by-elections, local elections and the European election, as well as the most recent polling data. That will mean there'll be numerous constituencies in which we'll be advising Conservative supporters to vote Ukip in 2015. >> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100238637/unite-the-right-conservative-and-ukip-supporters-must-put-aside-the-narcissism-of-small-differences/
Just look at the adverts I'm getting.
http://t.co/XAYzTWzoN6
Delighted TNT Post are today announcing 1000 new jobs in #Manchester, with specific focus on helping the long term unemployed back to work
And I would suggest you look at your own record before you accuse anyone of 'name calling'.
Personally I judge politicians on their record, for this reason I find the present generation most unsatisfactory.
I sometimes wonder Plato if you judge politicians on any metric greater than which party leader you would like as a husband.
Tories looking after the have's !
"As someone who has lurked here regularly since about three months before the last election, but with little time to get involved, could I just say what a delight this site has been in recent days without the presence of the poster known as Tim"
If you have been lurking for three years and your first post is to criticize a long time poster then I suggest you go back to lurking.
There are enough glove puppets and trolls without another one.
''Is the hatred of Ukip supporters for David Cameron really so great that they'd prefer to sacrifice what may well be our last chance to extract ourselves from a United States of Europe rather than see him get re-elected?''
You just don;t get this UKIP thing, do you, Tobe.
RT @Mancman10: Lady on #skynews says been out of work for 2yrs,applies for 20 jobs a day&says tory party stigmatising her #cpc13
So that over 7000 jobs then. Liar liar pants on fire!
So Mr Eagles, what website's are you visiting when your not on PB?
Given the opportunity of a nationwide broadcast of her predicament on a news channel, I would have thought she would have made some effort to sound employable. Instead she comes across as the kind of person no one would want to share an office with.
Had she got the tone right and made people sympathise with her she would now be receiving tens of job offers.
These 'long term unemployed' are going to very hard to place in work.
Some people after all believe that the fact a potential victim was able to successfully defend themselves is a feature, not a bug, of US gun laws ("when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" and all that) and should not be used as an argument against gun laws.
I often find myself visiting salubrious websites just to increase the jollity of the adverts here –well that’s the story I’m sticking to at least…!
So she is only spending between 30 mins and an hour on each one...Maybe if she took longer filling in the application forms....or maybe she is just bulls##ting! I know which of the two I believe.
Craig Woodhouse@craigawoodhouse13m
Nigel Farage greeted by applause and cheering as he (finally) arrives at Bruges Group fringe. #cpc13
like turkeys for Xmas if you ask me if that is true?
She also had some fun whilst visiting another school, when another teacher wanted to know why she was out of uniform.
The thing is, she's changed. I've known her for over twenty years, and her face and body have changed slightly. But aside from a few grey hairs, she hasn't really aged.
On the other hand, I had to give ID when thirteen in order to get a child's ticket on a train ...