Has any business started paying "The Living Wage" and marketed it as such? Surely if the cost/benefit of doing so was worthwhile someone would have tried it? "Our Coffees cost a bit more because we pay the living wage!"
BTW I'm not totally convinced this is going to work out well. The Japanese strategy when faced with the need to appear socially responsible on one hand but also to get people working for as little money as possible is to subcontract the shitty jobs to a company that doesn't need to appear socially responsible.
So Tokyo Electric Power Company will have very high standards of employment and job security, but when you try to follow up on the health of people who were actually working at their power station when there was an accident they won't be able to tell you, because there are several layers of subcontractors between them and the people on the ground, each with lower pay, worse conditions, higher turnover and a higher likelihood of ties to organized crime.
And that is the Tory problem - they are just looking at the headline figure, not the overall experience. You also need to throw in cuts to services and benefits to get a view on the overall situation; as well as price increases, of course.
Glad to hear you say that, Southam, since your friends on the left don't seem to have understood that point on the question of the top rate of tax.
The OBR thinks the top rate tax cut costs about £4 billion a year doesn't it? I know Tories like to think that the wealthy need incentives to change behaviour while everyone else needs battering by lower pay but even the OBR doesn't agree with you.
I am still waiting for the decrease in the top rate of tax to make the England football team play better.
Why does Ed Miliband want to give a one-year tax break to Hermes Fund Managers, Deloittes, and J P Morgan?
It's about bloody time the lawyers got some tax breaks.
Yes, and what about the bankers? The Guardian won't know whether to lambaste them for being, well, bankers, or praise them for subcontracting all their cleaning jobs to other companies and thus being able to claim, with a straight face, that they pay a 'living wage' to all their own employees.
On Topic OGH "In CON-LD marginals the yellows will do better than their polling position suggests particularly where the incumbent MP is standing again."
One interesting group of facts. Following the "surge" in Lib Dem support at GE 2010, the LDs lost 13 seats and gained 8:- 3 from Lab, 2 from the Conservatives and 3 new seats. Of the 13 lost seats, just 4 were retirements, 10 were lost to the Conservatives, 3 to Labour.
Has any business started paying "The Living Wage" and marketed it as such? Surely if the cost/benefit of doing so was worthwhile someone would have tried it? "Our Coffees cost a bit more because we pay the living wage!"
BTW I'm not totally convinced this is going to work out well. The Japanese strategy when faced with the need to appear socially responsible on one hand but also to get people working for as little money as possible is to subcontract the shitty jobs to a company that doesn't need to appear socially responsible.
That's the rub, isn't it? How many of these Councils have sub contractors all paying the Living Wage? Perhaps that's why so few market their "social responsibility" - knowing it could be shredded in five minutes by their office cleaning contract.....
Why are you so addicted to the £50 billion benefit spend linked to low pay and high rents?
You support every measure to drive up house prices and every measure to drive down pay, but you're a smart guy, you must know it's all dependent on state subsidies.
As Carlotta put it upthread: The Tories did not construct the tax credit edifice. As the Irish would say, "I wouldn't start from here."
Dismantling the welfare monster with its perverse incentives is a major task, which will take at least two terms, maybe three. Similarly for sorting out the education disaster which we inherited - those are the two root causes (along with excessive immigration of the wrong sort) of the problem.
Brogan (newsletter) has an excerpt from Cameron's CBI speech:
""Britain is in a global race for jobs and wealth. Our infrastructure is decades out of date and we urgently need to invest and build. Those who want to delay or obstruct HS2 show a lack of vision. They are playing politics with Britain’s prosperity. They are betraying everyone north of Watford. And they want to condemn Britain to the slow lane. We can either tell our grandchildren we made big, long-term decisions to build a better country... Or we can tell them we dithered for decades while the world raced ahead. That kind of no-can-do spirit will get us nowhere. Fortune favours the bold – not the weak and indecisive. I ask everyone across politics to put their own interests aside – and put the national interest first."
They definitely need better branding than "HS2" - the Great North South Railway has more of a ring to it.....
On Topic OGH "In CON-LD marginals the yellows will do better than their polling position suggests particularly where the incumbent MP is standing again."
One interesting group of facts. Following the "surge" in Lib Dem support at GE 2010, the LDs lost 13 seats and gained 8:- 3 from Lab, 2 from the Conservatives and 3 new seats. Of the 13 lost seats, just 4 were retirements, 10 were lost to the Conservatives, 3 to Labour.
The Telegraph is hardly an impartial indicator but it does seem to me that Ed's latest wheeze on the living wage subsidy has failed to strike home in the same way that his absurd energy price freeze did. An economic policy based on gimmicks and short term headlines is always likely to face a law of diminishing returns.
The reluctance of Balls to have much or anything to do with these policies is telling. It may be my natural sunny Monday morning optimism but I wonder if we have seen another peak in Labour support over the last few days.
Why is it absurd for the state to directly incentivise companies to pay a living wage as opposed to subsidising their decision not to?
Yeah exactly. The whole money merry-go-round is absurd. And this living wage wheeze from Miliband is a bit of a con, or a one-year post-election bribe, as the winners will just get their benefits cut in the next financial year to balance out the wage increase.
The Telegraph is hardly an impartial indicator but it does seem to me that Ed's latest wheeze on the living wage subsidy has failed to strike home in the same way that his absurd energy price freeze did. An economic policy based on gimmicks and short term headlines is always likely to face a law of diminishing returns.
The reluctance of Balls to have much or anything to do with these policies is telling. It may be my natural sunny Monday morning optimism but I wonder if we have seen another peak in Labour support over the last few days.
Why is it absurd for the state to directly incentivise companies to pay a living wage as opposed to subsidising their decision not to?
It is absurd because it is for one year only. What employer is going to increase wages for a year and then cut wages again thereafter? Very, very difficult. As money does not magically come from nowhere those employers will need to increase prices. Some will go out of business creating more unemployment. Those that don't will increase inflation reducing the real value of the pay.
We need to have serious debates in this country about inequality. It is immoral and economically damaging as I have said before. There is clear evidence that it affects education and life chances. It is a blight on meritocracy and the productivity of the UK.
Stupid, pointless gestures such as that proposed by Ed Miliband are not a contribution to that debate. They are an alternative to such thinking.
Midlands Tory Media @MidlandsCP 12m Today at the CBI, the Prime Minister will call for ‘national unity’ to see through vital infrastructure projects like #HS2
What a shame the fop didn't take the same approach to Heathrow.
The first time I read that my brain parsed it as "The Prime Minister will call for a government of national unity to see through vital infrastructure projects".
Which would actually be a good idea: A year with all three parties in government taking all the decisions that everybody in government thinks should happen but nobody dares to actually do, and nobody in opposition to demagogue them.
The Telegraph is hardly an impartial indicator but it does seem to me that Ed's latest wheeze on the living wage subsidy has failed to strike home in the same way that his absurd energy price freeze did. An economic policy based on gimmicks and short term headlines is always likely to face a law of diminishing returns.
The reluctance of Balls to have much or anything to do with these policies is telling. It may be my natural sunny Monday morning optimism but I wonder if we have seen another peak in Labour support over the last few days.
I agree. So let's study the detail. If Ed forces the Tories to respond in the way he has forced them to respond on energy process that can only be good news. Maybe we will end up with something better than he has put forward - just as we may be inching towards something better on energy - but if he doesn't ask the question the debate cannot begin as outside a few such as Boris there does not seem to be much interest on the Tory side to focus on the fact that a lot of people in this country are seeing their living standards fall or, at best, stagnate. In his cack-handed, uninspiring way, Ed has been setting the agenda for a good while now.
You need to drop this dislike of Ed Southam. He's been a very effective opposition leader, far more interesting and stimulating than we would have got from the bland Blairism of David.
That would be madness in terms of having it both ways and never admitting being wrong. Praising labour while criticising Ed allows a free "I always said that Ed wasn't the right man..." Card to be produced when labour screw up... Great PB one upmanship tactic
Laura Kuenssberg@ITVLauraK49m If you're a Co-op bank customer, does it bother you if hedge funds own the biggest chunk, if bank promises still to be ethical?
If they aren't careful Labour will decide to take their business elsewhere....
Baxter's is a nowcast whereas Fisher predicts a higher probability for Lab most seats over Lab Majoirty (Work that one out).
Fwiw I expect some swingback and a very close GE in terms of votes (I expect swingback to be less pronounced and more 'sticky' than at previous elections as swing from Labour to Lib Dem is worth half of Labour to Conservative swing). Also important to note is that th maximum swingback is not to a Conservative majority - the best CON can hope for is a continuation of the coalition or a CON minority Gov't. I would rules out CON Majority certainly at 4.0 as it is now in the markets.With Labour's built in efficiency and bias advantages that should be enough for Labour Most seats but not an overall majority. I think Ed will then go into a coalition with the Lib Dems but Nick Clegg's head will be required - or they will go it alone. One of the two.
The Telegraph is hardly an impartial indicator but it does seem to me that Ed's latest wheeze on the living wage subsidy has failed to strike home in the same way that his absurd energy price freeze did. An economic policy based on gimmicks and short term headlines is always likely to face a law of diminishing returns.
The reluctance of Balls to have much or anything to do with these policies is telling. It may be my natural sunny Monday morning optimism but I wonder if we have seen another peak in Labour support over the last few days.
I agree. So let's study the detail. If Ed forces the Tories to respond in the way he has forced them to respond on energy process that can only be good news. Maybe we will end up with something better than he has put forward - just as we may be inching towards something better on energy - but if he doesn't ask the question the debate cannot begin as outside a few such as Boris there does not seem to be much interest on the Tory side to focus on the fact that a lot of people in this country are seeing their living standards fall or, at best, stagnate. In his cack-handed, uninspiring way, Ed has been setting the agenda for a good while now.
You need to drop this dislike of Ed Southam. He's been a very effective opposition leader, far more interesting and stimulating than we would have got from the bland Blairism of David.
That would be madness in terms of having it both ways and never admitting being wrong. Praising labour while criticising Ed allows a free "I always said that Ed wasn't the right man..." Card to be produced when labour screw up... Great PB one upmanship tactic
I like the fact that Ed is raising some of the issues which I think are very important. I do not think he is a very good leader and, for that matter, I am not wildly impressed by the overall Labour package. I dislike it less than the Tory one, but as things stand probably not enough to vote for it in 2015.
The Telegraph is hardly an impartial indicator but it does seem to me that Ed's latest wheeze on the living wage subsidy has failed to strike home in the same way that his absurd energy price freeze did. An economic policy based on gimmicks and short term headlines is always likely to face a law of diminishing returns.
The reluctance of Balls to have much or anything to do with these policies is telling. It may be my natural sunny Monday morning optimism but I wonder if we have seen another peak in Labour support over the last few days.
Why is it absurd for the state to directly incentivise companies to pay a living wage as opposed to subsidising their decision not to?
It is absurd because it is for one year only. What employer is going to increase wages for a year and then cut wages again thereafter? Very, very difficult. As money does not magically come from nowhere those employers will need to increase prices. Some will go out of business creating more unemployment. Those that don't will increase inflation reducing the real value of the pay.
We need to have serious debates in this country about inequality. It is immoral and economically damaging as I have said before. There is clear evidence that it affects education and life chances. It is a blight on meritocracy and the productivity of the UK.
Stupid, pointless gestures such as that proposed by Ed Miliband are not a contribution to that debate. They are an alternative to such thinking.
So your only real issue with it is the limited initial time period. That's fair enough. However, I would have thought that a year's space to see how it works, to identify problems and the rest is actually a pretty sensible way to begin. And if it kickstarts a debate as Ed did with energy that is a very good thing, is it not?
Loving the twitter spat between Fraser Nelson and David Smith the ST economics editor - been going on for a week.
Nelson is peddling the line that Darling would have spent the same as GO and keeps retweeting 6 month old numbers - Smith is using IFS data to show Darling would have had to borrow £60Bn more - and calling Fraser a Tea Party type.
Why are you so addicted to the £50 billion benefit spend linked to low pay and high rents?
You support every measure to drive up house prices and every measure to drive down pay, but you're a smart guy, you must know it's all dependent on state subsidies.
As Carlotta put it upthread: The Tories did not construct the tax credit edifice. As the Irish would say, "I wouldn't start from here."
Dismantling the welfare monster with its perverse incentives is a major task, which will take at least two terms, maybe three. Similarly for sorting out the education disaster which we inherited - those are the two root causes (along with excessive immigration of the wrong sort) of the problem.
As you say, dismantling something that gives sweeties all round is difficult when there are not enough sweeties any more and there will be even fewer in the future and even more difficult politically as all those special cases of supposed deprivation will make the headlines.
We have to get out of the habit of any factor of poverty or deprivation being used as an excuse for non-attainment or non-aspiration. Look at the figures used in education to separate those entitled to free school meals or not and to excuse low attainment if a child has free school meals. This is a thought process not used by many of our major global competitors and was not used by our recent forefathers.
As this excuse becomes ingrained in the generations and used by teachers for children only being average or worse, then aspiration is mainly dead and many parents do not see the reason for or are totally unable to help/be interested in their child's education or lack of it. To them the state will provide enough for them to live and exist and be digitally entertained.
We have to return to educational rigor and challenge our children from the moment they enter school. There is nothing wrong with the children but plenty wrong with their parents who are led by erroneous educational and political thought and theories.
Restricting benefits to the truly old and poor, disabled or very young would deter those immigrants queuing at Calais as the rest of the EU is not as generous as the UK.
We have to rebalance our economy in favour of the wealth creators and producers and away from the wealth consumers. I do not see either Labour or the LDs advocating this.
A business generally has a staff bill, and for that bill they expect a certain amount of productivity in reply.
Anecdote alert: I knew a guy in the clothing industry who paid people a pittance, but generally got a pittance in return (e.g. employing several Pakistanis, who would work six months, then go home for a bit, then come back, etc.). Typically, they wouldn't always come back on time, but it didn't matter too much because he had enough spare staff and could cope.
Introduce the minimum wage and what happens? He expects a higher level of professionalism, i.e. turn up to work when you say you will, etc. So he fired half the staff and paid the others twice as much.
The question is. Is this the sort of working environment that people want? Plenty of stay at home mums, part time carers, etc. would rather have the flexibility, and other examples are, say, a supermarket needing thirty staff, if they all turned up on time, and didn't take days off if the kids were unwell, etc, so they go for forty staff and pay them 3/4 as much. Is that wrong?
Mr. Flashman (deceased), Nelson's a clever chap but he does seem to have some significant blind spots. A while ago I think he was comparing Osborne's actual borrowing figures with Darling's forecasts (which failed to account for either the eurozone sovereign debt crisis gumming everything up, or the fact Darling does not have a flawless record of forecasting deficits).
Midlands Tory Media @MidlandsCP 12m Today at the CBI, the Prime Minister will call for ‘national unity’ to see through vital infrastructure projects like #HS2
What a shame the fop didn't take the same approach to Heathrow.
The first time I read that my brain parsed it as "The Prime Minister will call for a government of national unity to see through vital infrastructure projects".
Which would actually be a good idea: A year with all three parties in government taking all the decisions that everybody in government thinks should happen but nobody dares to actually do, and nobody in opposition to demagogue them.
Midlands Tory Media @MidlandsCP 12m Today at the CBI, the Prime Minister will call for ‘national unity’ to see through vital infrastructure projects like #HS2
What a shame the fop didn't take the same approach to Heathrow.
The first time I read that my brain parsed it as "The Prime Minister will call for a government of national unity to see through vital infrastructure projects".
Which would actually be a good idea: A year with all three parties in government taking all the decisions that everybody in government thinks should happen but nobody dares to actually do, and nobody in opposition to demagogue them.
"So what Ed Miliband should do – rather than trying to coax employers into slowly but surely adopting the Living Wage he should cut to the chase and raise the minimum wage to the Living Wage, thus ensuring that no-one in our society is paid a wage on which it is impossible to life. It could even be introduced over a five-year period as Andrew Lewin has suggested. 60% of the public – including 44% of Tory voters – say that they would back a far higher minimum wage even if it caused job losses.
Ah – but there’s the catch isn’t it? No government wants to advocate any hard and fast policy that could hike up unemployment at a time when the economy is only just beginning to heal (and even then, only really for those at the top). The Tory Party spent years scaremongering about the Minimum Wage doing just that, and many are already beginning to make the same arguments against fair pay today.
Except a report published this morning suggests that the overall result of having a statutory Living Wage could be to increase the number of jobs in the economy. Landman Economics – an organisation quoted on the Labour Party’s own press release to justify Miliband’s Make Work Pay plan yesterday – have released a report this morning that states:
“it is unlikely that the extension of the living wage to all UK employees would result in any substantial aggregate employment losses. In fact, it is quite plausible that adopting the living wage on a statutory basis could actually increase overall employment in the UK.”
Howard Reed – formerly of the IFS and IPPR – who wrote the report also argues:
“A statutory living wage would therefore result in an economic ‘win-win’ on a number of levels. It would boost demand and economic growth, reduce earnings inequality, increase the share of wages in national income, and reduce the extent to which the benefit and tax credit system has to prop up low wages to reduce in-work poverty. By insisting on a voluntary approach to extending coverage, current proponents of a living wage are being unnecessarily cautious.”
"Restricting benefits to the truly old and poor, disabled or very young would deter those immigrants queuing at Calais as the rest of the EU is not as generous as the UK. "
Spending on social security in the UK ranks 11th in the EU, as I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, but you seem to forget after gorging on the Daiy Mail each breakfast time
As usual you are quoting a non-sequitur - (also your link does not work)
There is a real difference between social security for a country's native and contributing population and benefits for immigrants who have not contributed to the system.
You have not responded to the problem regarding economic migrants who do not wish to settle in the rest of the EU.
One of two things happens with paying everyone more: overall pay bills remains the same, with some losing their jobs, or you just create inflation which erodes the increase in pay for everyone.
One of two things happens with paying everyone more: overall pay bills remains the same, with some losing their jobs, or you just create inflation which erodes the increase in pay for everyone.
"Restricting benefits to the truly old and poor, disabled or very young would deter those immigrants queuing at Calais as the rest of the EU is not as generous as the UK. "
Spending on social security in the UK ranks 11th in the EU, as I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, but you seem to forget after gorging on the Daiy Mail each breakfast time
As usual you are quoting a non-sequitur - (also your link does not work)
There is a real difference between social security for a country's native and contributing population and benefits for immigrants who have not contributed to the system.
You have not responded to the problem regarding economic migrants who do not wish to settle in the rest of the EU.
Also - why does the "Lagos shuttle" only fly to London ?
Midlands Tory Media @MidlandsCP 12m Today at the CBI, the Prime Minister will call for ‘national unity’ to see through vital infrastructure projects like #HS2
What a shame the fop didn't take the same approach to Heathrow.
The first time I read that my brain parsed it as "The Prime Minister will call for a government of national unity to see through vital infrastructure projects".
Which would actually be a good idea: A year with all three parties in government taking all the decisions that everybody in government thinks should happen but nobody dares to actually do, and nobody in opposition to demagogue them.
That's Nigel Farage's wildest dream.
That's OK, FPTP would deal with him.
Joking aside, that does seem to be a growing trend. Rising support for populist parties across Europe is forcing the traditional parties of centre-right and centre-left into each other's arms.
One of two things happens with paying everyone more: overall pay bills remains the same, with some losing their jobs, or you just create inflation which erodes the increase in pay for everyone.
You can't magically make everyone richer.
Do you think that everyone's paycheck currently reflects precisely their level of productivity?
"So what Ed Miliband should do – rather than trying to coax employers into slowly but surely adopting the Living Wage he should cut to the chase and raise the minimum wage to the Living Wage, thus ensuring that no-one in our society is paid a wage on which it is impossible to life. It could even be introduced over a five-year period as Andrew Lewin has suggested. 60% of the public – including 44% of Tory voters – say that they would back a far higher minimum wage even if it caused job losses.
Ah – but there’s the catch isn’t it? No government wants to advocate any hard and fast policy that could hike up unemployment at a time when the economy is only just beginning to heal (and even then, only really for those at the top). The Tory Party spent years scaremongering about the Minimum Wage doing just that, and many are already beginning to make the same arguments against fair pay today.
Except a report published this morning suggests that the overall result of having a statutory Living Wage could be to increase the number of jobs in the economy. Landman Economics – an organisation quoted on the Labour Party’s own press release to justify Miliband’s Make Work Pay plan yesterday – have released a report this morning that states:
“it is unlikely that the extension of the living wage to all UK employees would result in any substantial aggregate employment losses. In fact, it is quite plausible that adopting the living wage on a statutory basis could actually increase overall employment in the UK.”
Howard Reed – formerly of the IFS and IPPR – who wrote the report also argues:
“A statutory living wage would therefore result in an economic ‘win-win’ on a number of levels. It would boost demand and economic growth, reduce earnings inequality, increase the share of wages in national income, and reduce the extent to which the benefit and tax credit system has to prop up low wages to reduce in-work poverty. By insisting on a voluntary approach to extending coverage, current proponents of a living wage are being unnecessarily cautious.”
Howard Reed formerly of IPPR, left leaning think tank.
One of two things happens with paying everyone more: overall pay bills remains the same, with some losing their jobs, or you just create inflation which erodes the increase in pay for everyone.
You can't magically make everyone richer.
Do you think that everyone's paycheck currently reflects precisely their level of productivity?
Generally not, it should reflect demand for that person's skills.
"Restricting benefits to the truly old and poor, disabled or very young would deter those immigrants queuing at Calais as the rest of the EU is not as generous as the UK. "
Spending on social security in the UK ranks 11th in the EU, as I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, but you seem to forget after gorging on the Daiy Mail each breakfast time
As usual you are quoting a non-sequitur - (also your link does not work)
There is a real difference between social security for a country's native and contributing population and benefits for immigrants who have not contributed to the system.
You have not responded to the problem regarding economic migrants who do not wish to settle in the rest of the EU.
Give me some stats on that. What we all know is that migrants within and into the EU are less likely to be claiming benefits than native populations, your Daily Mail mindset may not like that but it's a fact.
You just have to go to Calais and see the camps of non-EU migrants trying to get into the UK as they do not want to settle in France or elsewhere in the EU which was their first port of call according to EU regs.
F1: it'll be intriguing to see how the musical chairs are resolved at Sauber, Williams, Force India and Lotus. I wonder if Bottas could be a slight surprise casualty. Massa is rumoured to be heading to Williams, and Maldonado brings much money. I don't think Bottas does, so if Hulkenberg goes to Lotus and Di Resta stays at Force India that could mean Bottas gets tossed overboard.
Baxter's is a nowcast whereas Fisher predicts a higher probability for Lab most seats over Lab Majoirty (Work that one out).
Fwiw I expect some swingback and a very close GE in terms of votes (I expect swingback to be less pronounced and more 'sticky' than at previous elections as swing from Labour to Lib Dem is worth half of Labour to Conservative swing). Also important to note is that the maximum swingback is not to a Conservative majority - the best CON can hope for is a continuation of the coalition or a CON minority Gov't. I would rules out CON Majority certainly at 4.0 as it is now in the markets.With Labour's built in efficiency and bias advantages that should be enough for Labour Most seats but not an overall majority. I think Ed will then go into a coalition with the Lib Dems but Nick Clegg's head will be required - or they will go it alone. One of the two.
Looks plausible. One factor of unknown significance is the apparent disappearance of the Conservative ground war. Mike's reported that Bedford sees lots of Labour canvassing every week and no Tory canvassing that he's noticed. We have the same - my lot does about 30 person-hours a week, their lot does nothing visible on the ground apart from MP and councillor duties. Their problem seems to be ageing and declining membership.
Does this matter? Probably, partly because it conveys an impression of local absence, and partly because it makes the air war targeting less accurate. I only know of two people to get the latest DM (a weighty 6 glossy pages of spiel and survey, signed by David Cameron) - one is our CLP fundraising head, the other is a chap who left Labour as he felt we were too right-wing.
Eventually everyone will be on email/FB/Twitter lists and the need for a ground war will diminish, but I don't think we're quite there yet.
"Restricting benefits to the truly old and poor, disabled or very young would deter those immigrants queuing at Calais as the rest of the EU is not as generous as the UK. "
Spending on social security in the UK ranks 11th in the EU, as I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, but you seem to forget after gorging on the Daiy Mail each breakfast time
As usual you are quoting a non-sequitur - (also your link does not work)
There is a real difference between social security for a country's native and contributing population and benefits for immigrants who have not contributed to the system.
You have not responded to the problem regarding economic migrants who do not wish to settle in the rest of the EU.
Give me some stats on that. What we all know is that migrants within and into the EU are less likely to be claiming benefits than native populations, your Daily Mail mindset may not like that but it's a fact.
The migrants willingness to work hard for minimum wage jobs that would be top dollar in their own country is one of the reasons there are so many of the young native population on benefits
Telegraph View - Miliband is posturing on the economy "We have had our differences with the Chancellor for showing too little ambition on the growth front and of failing to cut public spending deeply enough. But at least Mr Osborne has been going in the right direction. By contrast, Labour seems to have given up trying to frame an intelligible economic policy and is to rely instead on issuing periodic headline-grabbing initiatives that offer nothing but temporary relief backed by fatuous slogans."
Labour List - The realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze "The answer is to be found in the deteriorating relationship between Labour’s leader and his shadow chancellor, a dysfunction which is increasingly defining policy-making within the party.
Beyond the personal bristling between the two from the outset of Ed Miliband’s leadership – let’s not forget Ed Balls spent most of the preceding twenty years as Miliband’s senior in the Brownite hierarchy, only to suddenly be junior post 2010– the origins of the tension are based in two competing political strategies that have never been reconciled."
The Telegraph is hardly an impartial indicator but it does seem to me that Ed's latest wheeze on the living wage subsidy has failed to strike home in the same way that his absurd energy price freeze did. An economic policy based on gimmicks and short term headlines is always likely to face a law of diminishing returns.
The reluctance of Balls to have much or anything to do with these policies is telling. It may be my natural sunny Monday morning optimism but I wonder if we have seen another peak in Labour support over the last few days.
F1: it'll be intriguing to see how the musical chairs are resolved at Sauber, Williams, Force India and Lotus. I wonder if Bottas could be a slight surprise casualty. Massa is rumoured to be heading to Williams, and Maldonado brings much money. I don't think Bottas does, so if Hulkenberg goes to Lotus and Di Resta stays at Force India that could mean Bottas gets tossed overboard.
Do you think it will be settled before the race in Austin? Also Alonso seemed rather unsettled when interviewed at the weekend and accusations of him almost giving up. Will he stay with Ferrari?
@NickPalmer - " my lot does about 30 person-hours a week..."
That's almost a full time occupation or is that the total of everyone's combined effort! What on earth do they actually DO? Ask residents their likely VI or conduct 'surveys' on local/national topics? Is literature also produced? Are your local Labour councillors involved too and with what tangible results?
Yup. Farrage should run in a Lab/Lib marginal and suck in voters from remaining Tories, disaffected Labour WWC and anti-government protest voters from the Lib Dems. It gives him the best chance of getting into Parliament.
A safe Labour seat is tough, a safe Tory seat is a non-starter and a Lib/Con marginal would be difficult because the Tories will be fighting very hard to keep him out. In a Lab/Lib marginal they will not and the other two will be too distracted fighting each other that Farrage could sneak in.
Mr. Financier, when you say 'it' do you mean Lotus, or all the seats?
I hope (but given the prolonged faffing around am not sure if it'll happen) that Lotus get their seat sorted promptly. They want Hulkenberg, and Hulkenberg wants a seat with them.
Massa to Williams may be contingent on Maldonado leaving. If Hulkenberg goes to Lotus that could slow things down there.
Sauber are definitely (super-licence permitting) getting Sirotkin, which means they stick with Gutierrez (assuming Hulkenberg leaves) or gets a new chap. They'll probably stick with the Mexican, but it's not guaranteed.
My feeling/guess is that the Williams deal will be the last to be confirmed, unless Maldonado *does* get the Lotus seat, in which case Di Resta, Hulkenberg and Massa may be three drivers vying for 2 seats.
Two weeks until Texas, so I imagine they'll all try and get it sorted, if they can, before then.
I see no one has shed any light on this 'general taxation' Ozzy is going to use to reallocate green tax revenues.
Hmm.
Isn't "general taxation" a combination of direct and indirect taxes collected by the government, to be used for general, non-specific purposes? Think of the road tax, which is not collected solely to be used for upkeep of the roads, and instead goes into a large pot. Compare with some of the energy taxes that are being talked about, where they are ringfenced for a specific purpose.
For instance, there is not an 'army tax', and therefore funding of the military comes from general taxation.
But IANAE, and I daresay someone will be along to correct me...
You just have to go to Calais and see the camps of non-EU migrants trying to get into the UK as they do not want to settle in France or elsewhere in the EU which was their first port of call according to EU regs.
What's your evidence that: 1) There are more people trying to get into the UK than other countries - you can't compare the number of people in a camp near the border, because if you're trying to get into another Schengen country you just go there, with no need to camp. 2) People trying to enter the UK are doing that for benefits reasons, as opposed to one of the obvious things - family/friends, language, jobs, ability to move around without identity papers because citizens don't need them, etc?
Yup. Farrage should run in a Lab/Lib marginal and suck in voters from remaining Tories, disaffected Labour WWC and anti-government protest voters from the Lib Dems. It gives him the best chance of getting into Parliament.
A safe Labour seat is tough, a safe Tory seat is a non-starter and a Lib/Con marginal would be difficult because the Tories will be fighting very hard to keep him out. In a Lab/Lib marginal they will not and the other two will be too distracted fighting each other that Farrage could sneak in.
He could get those Thurrock Tories voting ukip... 16/1!
Yup. Farrage should run in a Lab/Lib marginal and suck in voters from remaining Tories, disaffected Labour WWC and anti-government protest voters from the Lib Dems. It gives him the best chance of getting into Parliament.
A safe Labour seat is tough, a safe Tory seat is a non-starter and a Lib/Con marginal would be difficult because the Tories will be fighting very hard to keep him out. In a Lab/Lib marginal they will not and the other two will be too distracted fighting each other that Farrage could sneak in.
Anyone who's pushing this as a way for Farage to win needs to tell us what seat they're talking about. The article linked mentions South Shields, but if a protest party can only get 24% in a by-election against what they say is an abysmal candidate, they may as well forget about it for the general. If they're dreaming of uniting the right and winning that way they'd be better off with Eastleigh - at least there they have a decent claim to being in second place, and there's an actual right-wing vote to unite.
Farage's best hope of actually winning a seat - rather than just helping Labour win one and therefore cutting off his nose to spite his face - is to find a seat where the non-UKIP vote is as widely split as possible, without too large a proportion of ethnic minority voters, and hope to sneak through the middle with a combination of votes snaffled from the Tories, Labour, the LibDems and NOTA.
Farage's best hope of actually winning a seat - rather than just helping Labour win one and therefore cutting off his nose to spite his face - is to find a seat where the non-UKIP vote is as widely split as possible, without too large a proportion of ethnic minority voters, and hope to sneak through the middle with a combination of votes snaffled from the Tories, Labour, the LibDems and NOTA.
That would tend to point to Watford.
They certainly want all those things, but another thing that would help them would be to have some UKIP voters.
Of course Farage will stand in a Tory held seat. He desperately wants a Labour victory being petrified that if Dave is re-elected, he will succeed in renegotiating some elements for repatriation and will then secure a comprehensive yes vote in 2017.
Bye, bye UKIP.
it's all about self-preservation, sod all about the national interest.
Farage's best hope of actually winning a seat - rather than just helping Labour win one and therefore cutting off his nose to spite his face - is to find a seat where the non-UKIP vote is as widely split as possible, without too large a proportion of ethnic minority voters, and hope to sneak through the middle with a combination of votes snaffled from the Tories, Labour, the LibDems and NOTA.
That would tend to point to Watford.
They certainly want all those things, but another thing that would help them would be to have some UKIP voters.
Yes, well, I did say 'best hope', not that it was a good hope.
Still, the Kippers tell us that they are hugely underestimated, so those UKIP voters would presumably appear.
Nigel Farage should stand in Thurrock - a Conservative seat that's a major Labour target, with a substantial white working class and where UKIP performed well in 2010, saving its deposit (and with substantial BNP vote that is up for grabs too). It allows him to present UKIP as a third force, potentially buggering up both main parties.
"UK Labour Party official Eric Wilson turned up early and met Stephen Dean’s executive, which still runs Falkirk West constituency, in secret. He refused to address the assembled members and left by a side-door so they wouldn’t actually see him. The loyal members had turned up having been invited explicitly to discuss recent ‘events’. The letter sent out by the Labour Party explained; “General Secretary Ian McNicol has confirmed that a party delegate, most likely Eric Wilson, will be in attendance to answer any questions you may have with (sic) what has been going on over the past few months”.
At the members meeting, Gray Allan, Stephen Deans’ supporter, who chaired the meeting, explained that Eric Wilson had said (at the secret pre-meeting) that; “it would be wrong for him to have to field questions about what has been going on over the last few months”. No kidding. Moral Cowardice wrapped in Franz Kafka’s toilet tissue.
Labour also put out a statement, published in the Sunday Herald: “The complaints about the Falkirk selection have been fully investigated and acted upon”.
The very fact that we are still talking about which seat might be UKIP's best chance in 2015 (with some quite bizarre suggestions) is a sign of how badly UKIP have let themselves down by not knuckling down to this years ago.
Nope, Labour is the clear second contender there, so it's not a sufficiently divided opposition from UKIP's point of view (assuming they actually want to do anything other than help ever-closer union, bigger government, more borrowing, higher spending and more political correctness through a Miliband victory, of course - I think JohnO's reading is probably correct).
The very fact that we are still talking about which seat might be UKIP's best chance in 2015 (with some quite bizarre suggestions) is a sign of how badly UKIP have let themselves down by not knuckling down to this years ago.
Very true.
Though the Greens have also let themselves down by wasting the best Parliament they could ever have had for making further progress. They should have been relentlessly seeking to steal the disillusioned left, rather than letting them snuggle down resentfully in Labour's embrace.
Nope, Labour is the clear second contender there, so it's not a sufficiently divided opposition from UKIP's point of view
Labour got 31% in 2010. If UKIP are to win anywhere it will have to come at the expense of the Tory *and* Labour voteshare. Implying Labour would be on 30% or less in 2015 if UKIP went full blast there. That's a pretty low threshold to avoid having Labour coming through the middle.
Of course Farage will stand in a Tory held seat. He desperately wants a Labour victory being petrified that if Dave is re-elected, he will succeed in renegotiating some elements for repatriation and will then secure a comprehensive yes vote in 2017.
Bye, bye UKIP.
it's all about self-preservation, sod all about the national interest.
That wouldn't be Bye Bye UKIP, the negotiation would be a betrayal and the referendum would have been won based on lies. This is particularly easy to do if you fill in the actual likely details - for example, anything meaningful needs a treaty, which wouldn't have been ratified at the point of the referendum and would probably fail subsequent to it. And in any case all referendum campaigns are based on lies, so that wouldn't be a difficult case to make.
Nope, Labour is the clear second contender there, so it's not a sufficiently divided opposition from UKIP's point of view
Labour got 31% in 2010. If UKIP are to win anywhere it will have to come at the expense of the Tory *and* Labour voteshare. Implying Labour would be on 30% or less in 2015 if UKIP went full blast there. That's a pretty low threshold to avoid having Labour coming through the middle.
Yeah, but my contention is that they also need somewhere where (a) it won't look that a vote for UKIP is likely to lead to Labour winning, (b) there are a decent number of NOTA-style LibDems to pick up, (c) the leftish vote is as closely split between Labour and the LibDems as possible.
Of course,it would be nice also if, as Edmund says, there was also a decent base of UKIP voters as well.
This may well be asking for the impossible. But then, I don't think UKIP will win any seats, so I'm at least consistent!
Of course Farage will stand in a Tory held seat. He desperately wants a Labour victory being petrified that if Dave is re-elected, he will succeed in renegotiating some elements for repatriation and will then secure a comprehensive yes vote in 2017.
Bye, bye UKIP.
it's all about self-preservation, sod all about the national interest.
That wouldn't be Bye Bye UKIP, the negotiation would be a betrayal and the referendum would have been won based on lies. This is particularly easy to do if you fill in the actual likely details - for example, anything meaningful needs a treaty, which wouldn't have been ratified at the point of the referendum and would probably fail subsequent to it. And in any case all referendum campaigns are based on lies, so that wouldn't be a difficult case to make.
Fact is that a yes vote (around 60% would be my guess if all goes reasonably well) in 2017 would effectively end the issue for a generation or so. The kippers may well keep screeching foul but no one will be listening.
Tim posted - Midlands Tory Media @MidlandsCP 12m Today at the CBI, the Prime Minister will call for ‘national unity’ to see through vital infrastructure projects like #HS2
What a shame the fop didn't take the same approach to Heathrow
What a shame miliband and labour all over the place on HS2.
From last week. I finally caught that Radio 4 documentary on the Falkirk scandal. Oh dear. Its about time that Ed Miliband was hauled into the spotlight and asked some serious questions on this issue, or is he going to now try and hide behind Johann Lamont? Labour List - The web we have woven in Falkirk
"Ah, Falkirk. We drew a line under it, didn’t we? Only we didn’t.
A couple of months ago Uncut noted that the Falkirk debacle was unfinished business. But even we didn’t expect there to be quite such a spectacular unravelling, as happened last weekend.
For the uninitiated, the story went like this: the Falkirk West selection process was suspended amidst accusations that Unite were fixing the selection process for Karie Murphy, Tom Watson’s office manager and friend of Len McCluskey. Unite cried “foul” and hinted that Labour had exaggerated on purpose for their own ends; local witnesses suddenly, fortuitously, withdrew testimonies; and by party conference an uneasy truce was in place between Labour and Unite, both saying “move along, nothing to see”.
A sprinkling of chutzpah was even brought into play: McCluskey’s old friend Tom Watson, who ended up resigning over the fallout, said Miliband should apologise. Further, BBC Radio 4 even made an extraordinarily wrong-headed documentary about how this had all been a storm in a tea-cup, in which the chief defence witness was none other than far-left journalist Seumas Milne. Unite and the Labour Party, it seemed, had pulled it off.
The trouble was that no-one really believed them. Conference was full of stories about what had actually happened. The word was, in fact, that the press stories about membership abuses had all been true, and worse. That the complainants had been influenced and cajoled into withdrawing.
But the line held. It was all going well…until Grangemouth."
R4 playing Lamont BBC Scotland car crash interview on Falkirk - McCluskey's "Tory plot" falling apart as Falkirk Labour Party members call for the inquiry being re-opened......
This may well be asking for the impossible. But then, I don't think UKIP will win any seats, so I'm at least consistent!
Did you think UKIP would "win" any GE seats in the locals in May?
Sure, mid-term free-of-cost protest votes at the height of the gay marriage furore (the latter was a big factor, much bigger than I had expected a couple of months before).
Nope, Labour is the clear second contender there, so it's not a sufficiently divided opposition from UKIP's point of view
Labour got 31% in 2010. If UKIP are to win anywhere it will have to come at the expense of the Tory *and* Labour voteshare. Implying Labour would be on 30% or less in 2015 if UKIP went full blast there. That's a pretty low threshold to avoid having Labour coming through the middle.
Right, and arguably they're better if there isn't a serious Con vs Lab bunfight going on because they can avoid a tactical squeeze.
I can see Antifrank's point about Thurrock, though. Combined with the BNP they got 15% there in 2010, while the top 2 got 36.x% each. 7.5% off each of those doesn't sound like a horrendously high hurdle.
This may well be asking for the impossible. But then, I don't think UKIP will win any seats, so I'm at least consistent!
Did you think UKIP would "win" any GE seats in the locals in May?
Sure, mid-term free-of-cost protest votes at the height of the gay marriage furore (the latter was a big factor, much bigger than I expected).
Tbh I dont think they'll win any seats in 2015 either. Simply because they are not well enough placed anywhere to give them that springboard. But it is absolutely clear that a seat like South Thanet is obviously their best chance. Maybe not this time but certainly winnable in 2 GEs.
None of the seats that UKIP "won" in May were Lab / Lib marginals. Indeed none of them were held by Lab. Or Lib. They were all Tory seats.
Absolutely. Farage needs to run in a Tory seat where they did well last May and where the Tory candidate is clearly pro-EU. Running in a Lib/Lab marginal where they have done nothing in the past or where there is an obviously Eurosceptic Tory would be suicidal.
The seats that UKIP "won" in May were, with the exception of Aylesbury, Conservative/Labour marginals. Farage's best bet would be to stand in somewhere like Thanet South, which has a left wing Europhile Conservative MP, who he can argue is no different from Labour. Other possibilities would be Thurrock, Castle Point, Eastleigh, Great Yarmouth, or Sittingbourne & Sheppey.
The very fact that we are still talking about which seat might be UKIP's best chance in 2015 (with some quite bizarre suggestions) is a sign of how badly UKIP have let themselves down by not knuckling down to this years ago.
Farage appears to believe that announcing which seat he will stand in at a late stage - as a surprise! - will be a tactical masterstroke. We will see.
I can see Antifrank's point about Thurrock, though. Combined with the BNP they got 15% there in 2010, while the top 2 got 36.x% each. 7.5% off each of those doesn't sound like a horrendously high hurdle.
It's a shame Thurrock didnt have elections this year. 2014 should give a good idea about whether they are better placed here than the seats where there were 2013 elections and UKIP topped the poll.
This may well be asking for the impossible. But then, I don't think UKIP will win any seats, so I'm at least consistent!
Did you think UKIP would "win" any GE seats in the locals in May?
Sure, mid-term free-of-cost protest votes at the height of the gay marriage furore (the latter was a big factor, much bigger than I expected).
Tbh I dont think they'll win any seats in 2015 either. Simply because they are not well enough placed anywhere to give them that springboard. But it is absolutely clear that a seat like South Thanet is obviously their best chance. Maybe not this time but certainly winnable in 2 GEs.
1 or 2 seats has to be the very best that UKIP can hope for in 2015 IMHO. The important thing is to build up our base in local government, and then win at Parliamentary level.
Tim posted - Midlands Tory Media @MidlandsCP 12m Today at the CBI, the Prime Minister will call for ‘national unity’ to see through vital infrastructure projects like #HS2
What a shame the fop didn't take the same approach to Heathrow
What a shame miliband and labour all over the place on HS2.
IMHO they're doing the right thing with Heathrow. Airports are a vital national strategic resource, and as such the planning needs to be done at a national level. Saying 'Heathrow needs another runway' may be true, but it may not be the best answer for the country, or even fixing the right problem.
The Airport Commission have been set up to look into UK airport capacity as a whole.
A similar situation happened for HS2. A report into the railways was written which (from memory) showed there would be future capacity problems. There was then a study into what could be done about this, and then HS2 was set up to look into a high-speed line.
Define the problem, then decide on a solution. Do not decide on a solution, and hope it fits the problem...
This is yet more of the same old classic Brownite smoke and mirrors gimmicks, that Chucka Umunna tried to suggest it would cut the costs of Labour's previous Tax credits policy was very cheeky yesterday.
But Labour believe in increasing low wages via general inflation. Fair enough. That is a fairly Labour way of doing things...
But how does increased inflation help the low paid? Surely it hits them worst of all?
No, most of the money spent in the economy is spent by the non-low-paid, so the low-paid do substantially better even after allowing for the inflation tax that paid for their raise.
In absolute terms yes - but those with the lowest disposable incomes are hit by inflation most surely? Unless you are arguing that inflation is a progressive tax, which might explain Labour's fondness for it.....
Put another way, inflation is indeed a progressive tax if you give all the money you print to the poor.
Put another way - you need to make it mandatory for it to work as you describe. Why isn't it?
Meanwhile the low-paid in the scheme get a very big increase. This happens because the benefit is all concentrated on the (relatively) poor, while the cost is paid by everyone across the whole economy.
Then why not do it via raising the tax thresholds so all the low paid benefit? I realise with their 10p record Labour are unlikely to want to talk about tax and the poor - but surely not taxing in the first place is more sensible than constructing Byzantine government beurocracies to take money away, then give it back? Tinker! Tinker! Tinker!
The very fact that we are still talking about which seat might be UKIP's best chance in 2015 (with some quite bizarre suggestions) is a sign of how badly UKIP have let themselves down by not knuckling down to this years ago.
Farage appears to believe that announcing which seat he will stand in at a late stage - as a surprise! - will be a tactical masterstroke. We will see.
Maybe he's snaffled an entire local Tory party somewhere and he's hoping they won't notice until it's too late to start trying to build a new one.
Of course Farage will stand in a Tory held seat. He desperately wants a Labour victory being petrified that if Dave is re-elected, he will succeed in renegotiating some elements for repatriation and will then secure a comprehensive yes vote in 2017.
Bye, bye UKIP.
it's all about self-preservation, sod all about the national interest.
That wouldn't be Bye Bye UKIP, the negotiation would be a betrayal and the referendum would have been won based on lies. This is particularly easy to do if you fill in the actual likely details - for example, anything meaningful needs a treaty, which wouldn't have been ratified at the point of the referendum and would probably fail subsequent to it. And in any case all referendum campaigns are based on lies, so that wouldn't be a difficult case to make.
It's not just hostility towards the EU that drives support for UKIP, so I doubt if the party would go away, any more than the SNP will go away if it loses the independence referendum.
This may well be asking for the impossible. But then, I don't think UKIP will win any seats, so I'm at least consistent!
Did you think UKIP would "win" any GE seats in the locals in May?
Sure, mid-term free-of-cost protest votes at the height of the gay marriage furore (the latter was a big factor, much bigger than I expected).
Tbh I dont think they'll win any seats in 2015 either. Simply because they are not well enough placed anywhere to give them that springboard. But it is absolutely clear that a seat like South Thanet is obviously their best chance. Maybe not this time but certainly winnable in 2 GEs.
1 or 2 seats has to be the very best that UKIP can hope for in 2015 IMHO. The important thing is to build up our base in local government, and then win at Parliamentary level.
I agree. If UKIP "won" 10 seats (I know there is some argument about the precise number) in 2013 on a voteshare that they just wont get in 2015 then clearly the number of potential wins in 2015 is fewer than 10. Targeting more than that would simply reduce the chances of winning in the seats they could have a chance in. UKIP seem to be getting a lot more organised more recently and with activists like you will have people who know what it takes to win under FPTP. But the fact Farage hasnt gone out and picked a seat yet would concern me if I was a UKIPer.
Nigel Farage should stand in Thurrock - a Conservative seat that's a major Labour target, with a substantial white working class and where UKIP performed well in 2010, saving its deposit (and with substantial BNP vote that is up for grabs too). It allows him to present UKIP as a third force, potentially buggering up both main parties.
My thoughts exactly, and Paddy Power are 16/1
The Gooshays ward that ukip won in the last by election has the same feel to neighbouring Thurrock
Farage seems to be largely driven by hate of the Cameroon Tories. That rather than logic may dictate his choice of seat to contest in 2015. However, it may also be that he rather likes the relatively easy life of the professional maverick that being a UKIP MEP allows. I would not be surprised if he left potentially winnable seats to others in 2015, while he goes for something high-profile but futile.
Nigel Farage should stand in Thurrock - a Conservative seat that's a major Labour target, with a substantial white working class and where UKIP performed well in 2010, saving its deposit (and with substantial BNP vote that is up for grabs too). It allows him to present UKIP as a third force, potentially buggering up both main parties.
My thoughts exactly, and Paddy Power are 16/1
The Gooshays ward that ukip won in the last by election has the same feel to neighbouring Thurrock
Deliberately kicking the can to beyond the next GE because they simply cant deal with it this term is the "right thing"? Clearly they cant do anything wrong in your eyes.
Now its left to Anne Begg on the BBC Daily Politics to try and defend the fact that Ed Miliband hasn't published the party's internal report on the Falkirk scandal. Isn't it about time that Ed Miliband showed a bit of leadership here and finally put himself up for some questioning on the issue?
Comments
http://www.livingwage.org.uk/employers
BTW I'm not totally convinced this is going to work out well. The Japanese strategy when faced with the need to appear socially responsible on one hand but also to get people working for as little money as possible is to subcontract the shitty jobs to a company that doesn't need to appear socially responsible.
So Tokyo Electric Power Company will have very high standards of employment and job security, but when you try to follow up on the health of people who were actually working at their power station when there was an accident they won't be able to tell you, because there are several layers of subcontractors between them and the people on the ground, each with lower pay, worse conditions, higher turnover and a higher likelihood of ties to organized crime.
Thanks v much.
One interesting group of facts. Following the "surge" in Lib Dem support at GE 2010, the LDs lost 13 seats and gained 8:- 3 from Lab, 2 from the Conservatives and 3 new seats.
Of the 13 lost seats, just 4 were retirements, 10 were lost to the Conservatives, 3 to Labour.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/updated-full-list-of-lib-dems-standing-in-our-held-seats-and-top-50-targets-37037.html
Dismantling the welfare monster with its perverse incentives is a major task, which will take at least two terms, maybe three. Similarly for sorting out the education disaster which we inherited - those are the two root causes (along with excessive immigration of the wrong sort) of the problem.
""Britain is in a global race for jobs and wealth. Our infrastructure is decades out of date and we urgently need to invest and build. Those who want to delay or obstruct HS2 show a lack of vision. They are playing politics with Britain’s prosperity. They are betraying everyone north of Watford. And they want to condemn Britain to the slow lane. We can either tell our grandchildren we made big, long-term decisions to build a better country... Or we can tell them we dithered for decades while the world raced ahead. That kind of no-can-do spirit will get us nowhere. Fortune favours the bold – not the weak and indecisive. I ask everyone across politics to put their own interests aside – and put the national interest first."
They definitely need better branding than "HS2" - the Great North South Railway has more of a ring to it.....
Just a quick note to say that these data based articles are really interesting. Can't comment much these days, but still following with interest.
5. Sheffield Central (Lab, maj: 165) Swing required 0.2% Selection in process,- won't happen.
Wouldn't they be better off & more realistic putting up a list of "That Lib Dem defence list in full" ?
We need to have serious debates in this country about inequality. It is immoral and economically damaging as I have said before. There is clear evidence that it affects education and life chances. It is a blight on meritocracy and the productivity of the UK.
Stupid, pointless gestures such as that proposed by Ed Miliband are not a contribution to that debate. They are an alternative to such thinking.
Which would actually be a good idea: A year with all three parties in government taking all the decisions that everybody in government thinks should happen but nobody dares to actually do, and nobody in opposition to demagogue them.
If you're a Co-op bank customer, does it bother you if hedge funds own the biggest chunk, if bank promises still to be ethical?
If they aren't careful Labour will decide to take their business elsewhere....
Oh.
Baxter's is a nowcast whereas Fisher predicts a higher probability for Lab most seats over Lab Majoirty (Work that one out).
Fwiw I expect some swingback and a very close GE in terms of votes (I expect swingback to be less pronounced and more 'sticky' than at previous elections as swing from Labour to Lib Dem is worth half of Labour to Conservative swing). Also important to note is that th maximum swingback is not to a Conservative majority - the best CON can hope for is a continuation of the coalition or a CON minority Gov't. I would rules out CON Majority certainly at 4.0 as it is now in the markets.With Labour's built in efficiency and bias advantages that should be enough for Labour Most seats but not an overall majority. I think Ed will then go into a coalition with the Lib Dems but Nick Clegg's head will be required - or they will go it alone. One of the two.
Nelson is peddling the line that Darling would have spent the same as GO and keeps retweeting 6 month old numbers - Smith is using IFS data to show Darling would have had to borrow £60Bn more - and calling Fraser a Tea Party type.
Very entertaining.
We have to get out of the habit of any factor of poverty or deprivation being used as an excuse for non-attainment or non-aspiration. Look at the figures used in education to separate those entitled to free school meals or not and to excuse low attainment if a child has free school meals. This is a thought process not used by many of our major global competitors and was not used by our recent forefathers.
As this excuse becomes ingrained in the generations and used by teachers for children only being average or worse, then aspiration is mainly dead and many parents do not see the reason for or are totally unable to help/be interested in their child's education or lack of it. To them the state will provide enough for them to live and exist and be digitally entertained.
We have to return to educational rigor and challenge our children from the moment they enter school. There is nothing wrong with the children but plenty wrong with their parents who are led by erroneous educational and political thought and theories.
Restricting benefits to the truly old and poor, disabled or very young would deter those immigrants queuing at Calais as the rest of the EU is not as generous as the UK.
We have to rebalance our economy in favour of the wealth creators and producers and away from the wealth consumers. I do not see either Labour or the LDs advocating this.
Wee-Timmy asked about the QEC but I do not have access to the Daily Peston (a.k.a. The Financial Times). From Al-Beeb I snap a snippet.... Lazy mathematics (alongside lazy journalism). The facts they miss:
- Most of the costs are due to Gormless McBruin's incessant interference (and 'his' redesign of the original),
- Labour's spend-less-now-cost-more-later defence procurement (H**n's pension-plan), and
- Building it via closed contracts with BAe Systems.
Spreadsheet-Phil has overseen a project that is - now - ahead of schedule. Informed people know this (so that is outwith Labour and their trolls)....A business generally has a staff bill, and for that bill they expect a certain amount of productivity in reply.
Anecdote alert: I knew a guy in the clothing industry who paid people a pittance, but generally got a pittance in return (e.g. employing several Pakistanis, who would work six months, then go home for a bit, then come back, etc.). Typically, they wouldn't always come back on time, but it didn't matter too much because he had enough spare staff and could cope.
Introduce the minimum wage and what happens? He expects a higher level of professionalism, i.e. turn up to work when you say you will, etc.
So he fired half the staff and paid the others twice as much.
The question is. Is this the sort of working environment that people want? Plenty of stay at home mums, part time carers, etc. would rather have the flexibility, and other examples are, say, a supermarket needing thirty staff, if they all turned up on time, and didn't take days off if the kids were unwell, etc, so they go for forty staff and pay them 3/4 as much. Is that wrong?
"So what Ed Miliband should do – rather than trying to coax employers into slowly but surely adopting the Living Wage he should cut to the chase and raise the minimum wage to the Living Wage, thus ensuring that no-one in our society is paid a wage on which it is impossible to life. It could even be introduced over a five-year period as Andrew Lewin has suggested. 60% of the public – including 44% of Tory voters – say that they would back a far higher minimum wage even if it caused job losses.
Ah – but there’s the catch isn’t it? No government wants to advocate any hard and fast policy that could hike up unemployment at a time when the economy is only just beginning to heal (and even then, only really for those at the top). The Tory Party spent years scaremongering about the Minimum Wage doing just that, and many are already beginning to make the same arguments against fair pay today.
Except a report published this morning suggests that the overall result of having a statutory Living Wage could be to increase the number of jobs in the economy. Landman Economics – an organisation quoted on the Labour Party’s own press release to justify Miliband’s Make Work Pay plan yesterday – have released a report this morning that states:
“it is unlikely that the extension of the living wage to all UK employees would result in any substantial aggregate employment losses. In fact, it is quite plausible that adopting the living wage on a statutory basis could actually increase overall employment in the UK.”
Howard Reed – formerly of the IFS and IPPR – who wrote the report also argues:
“A statutory living wage would therefore result in an economic ‘win-win’ on a number of levels. It would boost demand and economic growth, reduce earnings inequality, increase the share of wages in national income, and reduce the extent to which the benefit and tax credit system has to prop up low wages to reduce in-work poverty. By insisting on a voluntary approach to extending coverage, current proponents of a living wage are being unnecessarily cautious.”
There is a real difference between social security for a country's native and contributing population and benefits for immigrants who have not contributed to the system.
You have not responded to the problem regarding economic migrants who do not wish to settle in the rest of the EU.
One of two things happens with paying everyone more: overall pay bills remains the same, with some losing their jobs, or you just create inflation which erodes the increase in pay for everyone.
You can't magically make everyone richer.
Another question that will go unanswered.
Hmm.
Oh wait
© ScottP, 2010 - 2013. No Labour applies....
Also, that only makes sense as an argument if you also advocate reducing footballers' salaries and having the state dictate how much everyone is paid.
Of course, if you're committed to ensuring hard work results in justified financial reward you can buy my new book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Temple-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/
Like France.
Today's Labour lead down a bit to 5%?? Or up to 10%?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24804479
Wonder when the two Eds will be asked about Unite or Labour's debts to the Co-Op Hedge fund?
Does this matter? Probably, partly because it conveys an impression of local absence, and partly because it makes the air war targeting less accurate. I only know of two people to get the latest DM (a weighty 6 glossy pages of spiel and survey, signed by David Cameron) - one is our CLP fundraising head, the other is a chap who left Labour as he felt we were too right-wing.
Eventually everyone will be on email/FB/Twitter lists and the need for a ground war will diminish, but I don't think we're quite there yet.
http://www.trendingcentral.com/farage-unite-right-2015-run-labour-seat/
"We have had our differences with the Chancellor for showing too little ambition on the growth front and of failing to cut public spending deeply enough. But at least Mr Osborne has been going in the right direction. By contrast, Labour seems to have given up trying to frame an intelligible economic policy and is to rely instead on issuing periodic headline-grabbing initiatives that offer nothing but temporary relief backed by fatuous slogans."
Labour List - The realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze
"The answer is to be found in the deteriorating relationship between Labour’s leader and his shadow chancellor, a dysfunction which is increasingly defining policy-making within the party.
Beyond the personal bristling between the two from the outset of Ed Miliband’s leadership – let’s not forget Ed Balls spent most of the preceding twenty years as Miliband’s senior in the Brownite hierarchy, only to suddenly be junior post 2010– the origins of the tension are based in two competing political strategies that have never been reconciled."
That's almost a full time occupation or is that the total of everyone's combined effort! What on earth do they actually DO? Ask residents their likely VI or conduct 'surveys' on local/national topics? Is literature also produced? Are your local Labour councillors involved too and with what tangible results?
A safe Labour seat is tough, a safe Tory seat is a non-starter and a Lib/Con marginal would be difficult because the Tories will be fighting very hard to keep him out. In a Lab/Lib marginal they will not and the other two will be too distracted fighting each other that Farrage could sneak in.
I hope (but given the prolonged faffing around am not sure if it'll happen) that Lotus get their seat sorted promptly. They want Hulkenberg, and Hulkenberg wants a seat with them.
Massa to Williams may be contingent on Maldonado leaving. If Hulkenberg goes to Lotus that could slow things down there.
Sauber are definitely (super-licence permitting) getting Sirotkin, which means they stick with Gutierrez (assuming Hulkenberg leaves) or gets a new chap. They'll probably stick with the Mexican, but it's not guaranteed.
My feeling/guess is that the Williams deal will be the last to be confirmed, unless Maldonado *does* get the Lotus seat, in which case Di Resta, Hulkenberg and Massa may be three drivers vying for 2 seats.
Two weeks until Texas, so I imagine they'll all try and get it sorted, if they can, before then.
For instance, there is not an 'army tax', and therefore funding of the military comes from general taxation.
But IANAE, and I daresay someone will be along to correct me...
1) There are more people trying to get into the UK than other countries - you can't compare the number of people in a camp near the border, because if you're trying to get into another Schengen country you just go there, with no need to camp.
2) People trying to enter the UK are doing that for benefits reasons, as opposed to one of the obvious things - family/friends, language, jobs, ability to move around without identity papers because citizens don't need them, etc?
I'd be surprised if he went to McLaren this year. 2015 seems eminently possible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10424621/Tory-MPs-secretly-want-Scotland-independence-for-Westminster-majority-claims-Lord-Forsyth.html
Vote "No" to annoy the Tories
That would tend to point to Watford.
Bye, bye UKIP.
it's all about self-preservation, sod all about the national interest.
Still, the Kippers tell us that they are hugely underestimated, so those UKIP voters would presumably appear.
"UK Labour Party official Eric Wilson turned up early and met Stephen Dean’s executive, which still runs Falkirk West constituency, in secret. He refused to address the assembled members and left by a side-door so they wouldn’t actually see him. The loyal members had turned up having been invited explicitly to discuss recent ‘events’. The letter sent out by the Labour Party explained; “General Secretary Ian McNicol has confirmed that a party delegate, most likely Eric Wilson, will be in attendance to answer any questions you may have with (sic) what has been going on over the past few months”.
At the members meeting, Gray Allan, Stephen Deans’ supporter, who chaired the meeting, explained that Eric Wilson had said (at the secret pre-meeting) that; “it would be wrong for him to have to field questions about what has been going on over the last few months”. No kidding. Moral Cowardice wrapped in Franz Kafka’s toilet tissue.
Labour also put out a statement, published in the Sunday Herald: “The complaints about the Falkirk selection have been fully investigated and acted upon”.
http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/11/man-or-mouse-er-mouse-it-is-then/
Though the Greens have also let themselves down by wasting the best Parliament they could ever have had for making further progress. They should have been relentlessly seeking to steal the disillusioned left, rather than letting them snuggle down resentfully in Labour's embrace.
Of course,it would be nice also if, as Edmund says, there was also a decent base of UKIP voters as well.
This may well be asking for the impossible. But then, I don't think UKIP will win any seats, so I'm at least consistent!
Today at the CBI, the Prime Minister will call for ‘national unity’ to see through vital infrastructure projects like #HS2
What a shame the fop didn't take the same approach to Heathrow
What a shame miliband and labour all over the place on HS2.
Labour List - The web we have woven in Falkirk
"Ah, Falkirk. We drew a line under it, didn’t we? Only we didn’t.
A couple of months ago Uncut noted that the Falkirk debacle was unfinished business. But even we didn’t expect there to be quite such a spectacular unravelling, as happened last weekend.
For the uninitiated, the story went like this: the Falkirk West selection process was suspended amidst accusations that Unite were fixing the selection process for Karie Murphy, Tom Watson’s office manager and friend of Len McCluskey. Unite cried “foul” and hinted that Labour had exaggerated on purpose for their own ends; local witnesses suddenly, fortuitously, withdrew testimonies; and by party conference an uneasy truce was in place between Labour and Unite, both saying “move along, nothing to see”.
A sprinkling of chutzpah was even brought into play: McCluskey’s old friend Tom Watson, who ended up resigning over the fallout, said Miliband should apologise. Further, BBC Radio 4 even made an extraordinarily wrong-headed documentary about how this had all been a storm in a tea-cup, in which the chief defence witness was none other than far-left journalist Seumas Milne. Unite and the Labour Party, it seemed, had pulled it off.
The trouble was that no-one really believed them. Conference was full of stories about what had actually happened. The word was, in fact, that the press stories about membership abuses had all been true, and worse. That the complainants had been influenced and cajoled into withdrawing.
But the line held. It was all going well…until Grangemouth."
(I'm a born editor)
I can see Antifrank's point about Thurrock, though. Combined with the BNP they got 15% there in 2010, while the top 2 got 36.x% each. 7.5% off each of those doesn't sound like a horrendously high hurdle.
Absolutely. Farage needs to run in a Tory seat where they did well last May and where the Tory candidate is clearly pro-EU. Running in a Lib/Lab marginal where they have done nothing in the past or where there is an obviously Eurosceptic Tory would be suicidal.
Johann Lamont told the BBC "we certainly have to look at that" because of concerns the investigation "wasn't entirely complete".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24801672
"certainly have to look at that'.......fighting talk!
It's a shame Thurrock didnt have elections this year. 2014 should give a good idea about whether they are better placed here than the seats where there were 2013 elections and UKIP topped the poll.
Since when did we PBers wait until official announcements? Surely it's more fun to rampantly speculate
@Morris
I refer you to my answer on this the other day - you are the one putting all your faith in the market to set wage levels, not me
The Airport Commission have been set up to look into UK airport capacity as a whole.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/airports-commission/about
A similar situation happened for HS2. A report into the railways was written which (from memory) showed there would be future capacity problems. There was then a study into what could be done about this, and then HS2 was set up to look into a high-speed line.
Define the problem, then decide on a solution. Do not decide on a solution, and hope it fits the problem...
The Gooshays ward that ukip won in the last by election has the same feel to neighbouring Thurrock
How many jobs in the Co-Op bank has Labour's sweetheart loans cost?
Ethical business? How about Ethical borrowing?
Toodles