The PB lefties continue to obsess about the top 10% and the bottom 10%.
If they ever met the middle 80% they would realise that they talk about different things.
I'm in the top 10% and am really worried about the bottom 10%. That doesn't mean that I am not pro-business, pro-aspiration, pro- good old fashioned hard work.
Its just that I'm not an amoral git.
Over the years I have become less tolerant of the people the Conservative Party would consider to be "scroungers" but I don't believe their children should starve as a result of the parents' shortcomings.
This for me too - its not the kids fault, but the issue is how best to support them? Nothing is as simple as it is sometimes painted.
It's absolutely remarkable that, in all their haste to depict the Tories as evil and unfeeling, I haven't seen a single advocate for the free school meals proposal provide any data at all on the scale of the problem it is supposed to address, nor any reasoned argument that it's a good way to deal with the problem. Impugning the motives of those on the other side of the argument is not convincing.
This research from the HoL library is a good place to start:
Much of the evidence is drawn from a 2019 report for Defra by the founder of the Leon restaurant chain.
3mn children at risk of hunger over the school holidays, apparently.
Also much anecdotal evidence from teachers in poor areas, voluntary breakfast clubs sustained by local charity etc. etc. There was a piece in the Graun a week or two ago about a teacher who carried on the breakfast club during lockdown by making deliveries - the families were so dependent on it.
I think part of the problem with all benefits is that they aren't taxable which means there's always odd scenarios that means people are better off on benefits rather than working. We should increase the gross amount and make it taxable so when people do get jobs their income replaces their benefits at a minimum like for like rate.
I also think bringing people into the tax system makes sense in general, especially those with a very high benefit amount.
The LibDems used to have a policy of replacing benefits with a negative income tax, i.e. complete integration of the tax and benefits systems. I think it's quite a good idea - much better than their current universal income gimmick - since it could completely eliminate some of the nasty cliff-edge problems and high marginal rates for people on low incomes. And it could be introduced gradually, phasing out existing benefits one by one and gradually bumping up the negative income tax component.
That's still more complicated than just increasing the gross amount and making them taxable.
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
A Conservative MP has quit her junior government role after rebelling to support extending free school meals over the coming school holidays.
Caroline Ansell resigned as a parliamentary private secretary to the environment secretary, saying she "could not in all conscience ignore" her belief the policy would benefit families struggling during the pandemic.
She said she backed Labour's motion, which was defeated in the House of Commons last night, because "I am very concerned to be doing all we can to help lower-income families and their children who are really struggling due to the impact of the virus".
One of the arguments made by lockdown sceptic Sunetra Gupta is the danger of 100m people dying of starvation due to our covid response. Not completely unrelated to the FSM debate.
Pretty desperate stuff. When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer. It reminds me of the guff that Labour supporters used to put out about Cameron. Remember those? Cameron was a chameleon, a lightweight, no experience, a SPAD. None of it worked, because the electorate eventually worked out that Gordon Brown was essentially a pretty useless leader and PM. Gordo looks like a colossus compared to Shagger, and I would say Starmer's back story is a lot lot stronger than Cameron's. The Tories didn't throw Cameron overboard because they knew he was the best they had. Labour will be even less inclined to do so with Starmer, because he is the best they have by a country mile. I can see that and I am not a Labour supporter.
I agree.
Labour have nobody near him at this time, even though it seems he is not cutting through by as much as one may expect
Still early days. Do we really need an inspirational Tony Blair figure for 2024? By the time we get to 2024, the last thing we will need or want is another bull******, uninspiring and competent will fit the bill perfectly.
It's worth remembering that when Blair became Labour leader Labour already had a sizeable lead in the polls and the party was a few years into a detoxification process. He built on work already begun. Starmer inherited a very different position.
Given how crap the government has proved to be, it is pretty clear that the reason it remains ahead in the polling is largely a Labour issue. There is a lot more work to be done. I doubt many people serious about Labour winning again would dispute that.
It is also worth remembering that Tony Blair did inspire a lot of people. It's harder to remember on the wrong side of Iraq, tuition fees, and the general grubbiness that being in power stains you with, that Blair was like a rock star in 90s. I never voted for him, but it was an exciting time for many.
Blair was the real deal, but he also had a very strong supporting cast. Labour looked like the government long before it took charge. I think a fair few people could imagine Starmer in Downing Street, but there is no Gordon Brown to stand beside him - or a Cook, a Mandelson, a Mowlam, a Straw etc etc. That is the challenge Labour has. Voters probably would not mind the party's leader as PM, but they want Rishi Sunak running the economy. Things can change, though.
Yeah the Labour shadow cabinet is wank.
I tell you who Labour need right now...Ed Balls. He's only 53 and been around the block a few times and isn't as hated as he used to be.
He'd be a good shadow chancellor, much better than er....who is it again? Give some bung to a Labour MP in a safe seat and get him back in parliament.
Actually the Tories could do with some of their old guard back, Cameron, Osborne and Hague who are all still young enough. Why do politicians seem to retire so young these days?
I agree. I guess they retire because being a politician is a pretty rubbish career choice. You get a ton of hate and very little compensation in comparison to the top of other vocations.
Though as Ed Balls and Ann Widdecombe and now Jackie Smith have proved after being an actor, singer or sportstar being an ex politician is the best route to getting on Strictly
I think part of the problem with all benefits is that they aren't taxable which means there's always odd scenarios that means people are better off on benefits rather than working. We should increase the gross amount and make it taxable so when people do get jobs their income replaces their benefits at a minimum like for like rate.
I also think bringing people into the tax system makes sense in general, especially those with a very high benefit amount.
The LibDems used to have a policy of replacing benefits with a negative income tax, i.e. complete integration of the tax and benefits systems. I think it's quite a good idea - much better than their current universal income gimmick - since it could completely eliminate some of the nasty cliff-edge problems and high marginal rates for people on low incomes. And it could be introduced gradually, phasing out existing benefits one by one and gradually bumping up the negative income tax component.
Wasn't Keynes (or perhaps Friedman?) in favour of this?
Pretty desperate stuff. When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer. It reminds me of the guff that Labour supporters used to put out about Cameron. Remember those? Cameron was a chameleon, a lightweight, no experience, a SPAD. None of it worked, because the electorate eventually worked out that Gordon Brown was essentially a pretty useless leader and PM. Gordo looks like a colossus compared to Shagger, and I would say Starmer's back story is a lot lot stronger than Cameron's. The Tories didn't throw Cameron overboard because they knew he was the best they had. Labour will be even less inclined to do so with Starmer, because he is the best they have by a country mile. I can see that and I am not a Labour supporter.
I agree.
Labour have nobody near him at this time, even though it seems he is not cutting through by as much as one may expect
Still early days. Do we really need an inspirational Tony Blair figure for 2024? By the time we get to 2024, the last thing we will need or want is another bull******, uninspiring and competent will fit the bill perfectly.
It's worth remembering that when Blair became Labour leader Labour already had a sizeable lead in the polls and the party was a few years into a detoxification process. He built on work already begun. Starmer inherited a very different position.
Given how crap the government has proved to be, it is pretty clear that the reason it remains ahead in the polling is largely a Labour issue. There is a lot more work to be done. I doubt many people serious about Labour winning again would dispute that.
It is also worth remembering that Tony Blair did inspire a lot of people. It's harder to remember on the wrong side of Iraq, tuition fees, and the general grubbiness that being in power stains you with, that Blair was like a rock star in 90s. I never voted for him, but it was an exciting time for many.
Blair was the real deal, but he also had a very strong supporting cast. Labour looked like the government long before it took charge. I think a fair few people could imagine Starmer in Downing Street, but there is no Gordon Brown to stand beside him - or a Cook, a Mandelson, a Mowlam, a Straw etc etc. That is the challenge Labour has. Voters probably would not mind the party's leader as PM, but they want Rishi Sunak running the economy. Things can change, though.
Yeah the Labour shadow cabinet is wank.
I tell you who Labour need right now...Ed Balls. He's only 53 and been around the block a few times and isn't as hated as he used to be.
He'd be a good shadow chancellor, much better than er....who is it again? Give some bung to a Labour MP in a safe seat and get him back in parliament.
Actually the Tories could do with some of their old guard back, Cameron, Osborne and Hague who are all still young enough. Why do politicians seem to retire so young these days?
You are Danny Alexander and I claim my £5!
Partly because they come into office too young, are unsurprisingly not very good and then their reputation is tarnished. Also Camborne were stuck in the 1980s other than the odd social reform and not really attuned to things post-2008.
There'll be the inevitable 'but they won' etc - though the proof of the pudding is in the eating. There's no clamour for them to return or to revisit their policies.
And yet the great hope of the Conservative party when Boris has Got Brexit Done is the highly talented work experience kid.
Pretty desperate stuff. When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer. It reminds me of the guff that Labour supporters used to put out about Cameron. Remember those? Cameron was a chameleon, a lightweight, no experience, a SPAD. None of it worked, because the electorate eventually worked out that Gordon Brown was essentially a pretty useless leader and PM. Gordo looks like a colossus compared to Shagger, and I would say Starmer's back story is a lot lot stronger than Cameron's. The Tories didn't throw Cameron overboard because they knew he was the best they had. Labour will be even less inclined to do so with Starmer, because he is the best they have by a country mile. I can see that and I am not a Labour supporter.
I agree.
Labour have nobody near him at this time, even though it seems he is not cutting through by as much as one may expect
Still early days. Do we really need an inspirational Tony Blair figure for 2024? By the time we get to 2024, the last thing we will need or want is another bull******, uninspiring and competent will fit the bill perfectly.
It's worth remembering that when Blair became Labour leader Labour already had a sizeable lead in the polls and the party was a few years into a detoxification process. He built on work already begun. Starmer inherited a very different position.
Given how crap the government has proved to be, it is pretty clear that the reason it remains ahead in the polling is largely a Labour issue. There is a lot more work to be done. I doubt many people serious about Labour winning again would dispute that.
It is also worth remembering that Tony Blair did inspire a lot of people. It's harder to remember on the wrong side of Iraq, tuition fees, and the general grubbiness that being in power stains you with, that Blair was like a rock star in 90s. I never voted for him, but it was an exciting time for many.
Blair was the real deal, but he also had a very strong supporting cast. Labour looked like the government long before it took charge. I think a fair few people could imagine Starmer in Downing Street, but there is no Gordon Brown to stand beside him - or a Cook, a Mandelson, a Mowlam, a Straw etc etc. That is the challenge Labour has. Voters probably would not mind the party's leader as PM, but they want Rishi Sunak running the economy. Things can change, though.
Yeah the Labour shadow cabinet is wank.
I tell you who Labour need right now...Ed Balls. He's only 53 and been around the block a few times and isn't as hated as he used to be.
He'd be a good shadow chancellor, much better than er....who is it again? Give some bung to a Labour MP in a safe seat and get him back in parliament.
Actually the Tories could do with some of their old guard back, Cameron, Osborne and Hague who are all still young enough. Why do politicians seem to retire so young these days?
I agree. I guess they retire because being a politician is a pretty rubbish career choice. You get a ton of hate and very little compensation in comparison to the top of other vocations.
I just had a look at what he has done since and found out he was chairman of Norwich City for 3 years!
I realise politics isn't exactly the most glamourous job, but if being chairman of a football team or editing the Evening Standard is preferable to running the country then we're all in a lot of trouble.
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
£1000/ month, £250/ week with multiple children must be heaven
I note you missed my saying "well over" and that I never said heaven.
Someone working Full Time minimum wage only takes home a comparable amount after tax and national insurance too.
Plus once more you missed the fact I made a specific proposal as to how the system should be made more generous by slashing the taper rate.
So what more do you want me to say?
Unfortunately many think £1000 a month adequate not really getting at you. Although to be honest €1000 a month is the normal income in Spain for a very large proportion of the population with little differentiation between a petrol pump attendant and say a town hall clerk. The €1000 is take home and people do seem to mange but it’s cheaper out here across the board.
Bear in mind that the following figures are the full-time (37.5 hrs per week) minimum wage per month before tax:
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
To be fair, without the cost of my mortgage (which is around £700 per month) I could easily survive on £1,000 a month. I recognise that I have no dependents though.
I think part of the problem with all benefits is that they aren't taxable which means there's always odd scenarios that means people are better off on benefits rather than working. We should increase the gross amount and make it taxable so when people do get jobs their income replaces their benefits at a minimum like for like rate.
I also think bringing people into the tax system makes sense in general, especially those with a very high benefit amount.
The LibDems used to have a policy of replacing benefits with a negative income tax, i.e. complete integration of the tax and benefits systems. I think it's quite a good idea - much better than their current universal income gimmick - since it could completely eliminate some of the nasty cliff-edge problems and high marginal rates for people on low incomes. And it could be introduced gradually, phasing out existing benefits one by one and gradually bumping up the negative income tax component.
That's still more complicated than just increasing the gross amount and making them taxable.
It can be done very simply. Have a Universal Basic Income (the negative amount) while abolishing all means tested welfare. Then simply tax income as normal with no taper for welfare and potentially no threshold for tax free earnings (since the UBI has covered it). It is the taper that is heinous and means that people on benefits can be on tax rates approaching 100%.
Means tested benefits are what traps people in poverty. There should be nothing that is means tested. Some say that you're giving to the rich but so what? They're the ones paying for it in the first place. Tapering benefits means we tax the poorest more than the richest.
Reminds me, who was the guy (Israeli?) asserting that the pandemic burns out everywhere in 70 days (apparently entirely naturally, not due to even the most incompetent governments doing something about it within a month or so). Has he been commenting on recent events?
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
Hence the massive scale of the defeat in '97. They clung on because the economy was fine in spite of almost every other issue. Once that was kicked away, there was nothing there.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
Are you taking into account tax credits?
Money Week showed in 2015 that a family with 3 children and 1 parent working 24 hours a week on minimum wage will get benefits that top up their earnings to the equivalent of earning £40,500.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
£1000/ month, £250/ week with multiple children must be heaven
I note you missed my saying "well over" and that I never said heaven.
Someone working Full Time minimum wage only takes home a comparable amount after tax and national insurance too.
Plus once more you missed the fact I made a specific proposal as to how the system should be made more generous by slashing the taper rate.
So what more do you want me to say?
Unfortunately many think £1000 a month adequate not really getting at you. Although to be honest €1000 a month is the normal income in Spain for a very large proportion of the population with little differentiation between a petrol pump attendant and say a town hall clerk. The €1000 is take home and people do seem to mange but it’s cheaper out here across the board.
The thing is food in the UK is now incredibly cheap. A bag of potatoes in Aldi is 30 pence. A loaf of bread is 35 pence. You can get bags of decent food for £20. And if you hang around for the reductions its amazing what you can get. When I was bought up in the 70s food accounted for 30% of the average salary. I doubt now its more than 7%. To give a child a lunch of say jacket potato with beans will cost less than 20 pence.
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
I've never bought into the Lamont hate on the left.
He inherited an economic mess and managed a way out of recession.
The ERM was Major's fault.
Prudes didn't like him renting his flat to a dominatrix.
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
Hence the massive scale of the defeat in '97. They clung on because the economy was fine in spite of almost every other issue. Once that was kicked away, there was nothing there.
The economy was in better shape in 1997 than in 1992, unemployment was slightly lower and inflation significantly lower, the main difference though was Major was facing Blair after 18 years of the Tories in power not Kinnock after 14 years in power
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
Are you taking into account tax credits?
Money Week showed in 2015 that a family with 3 children and 1 parent working 24 hours a week on minimum wage will get benefits that top up their earnings to the equivalent of earning £40,500.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
To be fair, without the cost of my mortgage (which is around £700 per month) I could easily survive on £1,000 a month. I recognise that I have no dependents though.
*Without* the cost of your mortgage. Problem is that low paid jobs / UC mean you have to pay your bills. Its not just a crisis for the bottom decile, the "squeezed middle" struggle to cope with some of the absurdly high costs of living we face in the UK.
Our local Citizens Advice has been swamped by squeezed middle people dropped onto UC thanks to the loss of their job. From the anecdotes I have heard what they can get - or usually can't get - has been a real shock.
If a refugee wants to live with friends in another country they can apply for a visa to get to that country.
If a refugee wants safety they can apply for it where they are safe to do so.
Who does this help? Say I needed to leave everything behind and live somewhere else until the danger is passed, and I don't know how long that will be. I could go somewhere where I have friends and/or relatives and know the language, and if they'll let me I'll have a chance of working and paying taxes. Or I could go to some country where I didn't speak the language or know anybody, and presumably rely more on help from the government or the kindness of strangers. What's the public policy benefit from me doing the second of those instead of the first?
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
You see the bit where I said "work doesn't pay"? Thats my answer to your point about minimum wage - it isn't enough.
This is the point. The Tories can't feed hungry kids. To do so is to accept that either the minimum wage or UC doesn't provide enough money to get by. The system is broken. So I am glad to hear that you support a progressive rebuilding of the system.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
Are you taking into account tax credits?
Money Week showed in 2015 that a family with 3 children and 1 parent working 24 hours a week on minimum wage will get benefits that top up their earnings to the equivalent of earning £40,500.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
£1000/ month, £250/ week with multiple children must be heaven
I note you missed my saying "well over" and that I never said heaven.
Someone working Full Time minimum wage only takes home a comparable amount after tax and national insurance too.
Plus once more you missed the fact I made a specific proposal as to how the system should be made more generous by slashing the taper rate.
So what more do you want me to say?
Unfortunately many think £1000 a month adequate not really getting at you. Although to be honest €1000 a month is the normal income in Spain for a very large proportion of the population with little differentiation between a petrol pump attendant and say a town hall clerk. The €1000 is take home and people do seem to mange but it’s cheaper out here across the board.
The thing is food in the UK is now incredibly cheap. A bag of potatoes in Aldi is 30 pence. A loaf of bread is 35 pence. You can get bags of decent food for £20. And if you hang around for the reductions its amazing what you can get. When I was bought up in the 70s food accounted for 30% of the average salary. I doubt now its more than 7%. To give a child a lunch of say jacket potato with beans will cost less than 20 pence.
If you live near an Aldi. Or indeed a supermarket of any kind.
If the word "scum" applies to anyone it is to the Super SPAD himself, friend and string puller of our empty suited Prime Minister. This, if accurate, is absolutely outrageous, some might even suspect that it is corrupt:
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
To be fair, without the cost of my mortgage (which is around £700 per month) I could easily survive on £1,000 a month. I recognise that I have no dependents though.
*Without* the cost of your mortgage. Problem is that low paid jobs / UC mean you have to pay your bills. Its not just a crisis for the bottom decile, the "squeezed middle" struggle to cope with some of the absurdly high costs of living we face in the UK.
Our local Citizens Advice has been swamped by squeezed middle people dropped onto UC thanks to the loss of their job. From the anecdotes I have heard what they can get - or usually can't get - has been a real shock.
Let's not forget too that these people are (rightly) shocked by how little UC is... even after the Chancellor arbitarily increased it by £20 pw (27%!) in April.
In terms of ads Biden is putting a lot out nationally rather than on local state tv . It actually works out cheaper that way in terms of voter reach . So he does have a presence in Texas and other super pacs are still running some more locally .
His latest ad is narrated by Sam Elliott and is really Biden’s closing message about bringing the country together . It’s being shown during the World Series and apparently cost 4 million dollars to air in that slot .
So Biden is doing national ads rather than ads just focused on key swing states, not holding any rallies in the key swing states over the last week (apart from sending Obama to do a drive in event in Philadelphia yesterday) and not doing any ground game.
Meanwhile Trump has held rallies in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina within the last 10 days and has had his activists go door to door to id supporters across the MidWest.
It looks like Biden is yet again risking a Hillary, fighting to win the national popular vote which he likely will while Trump focuses on winning the Electoral College where the election is actually decided
If rallies were a marker for whose going to win then Corbyn would have been PM in 2017!
Super pacs play a large part of the ads for each campaign and they’re still running in the swing states and Biden still has some of his own . Putting ads nationally still means those run locally aswell because most local stations are affiliated with the main broadcasters .
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
Are you taking into account tax credits?
Money Week showed in 2015 that a family with 3 children and 1 parent working 24 hours a week on minimum wage will get benefits that top up their earnings to the equivalent of earning £40,500.
Pretty desperate stuff. When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer. It reminds me of the guff that Labour supporters used to put out about Cameron. Remember those? Cameron was a chameleon, a lightweight, no experience, a SPAD. None of it worked, because the electorate eventually worked out that Gordon Brown was essentially a pretty useless leader and PM. Gordo looks like a colossus compared to Shagger, and I would say Starmer's back story is a lot lot stronger than Cameron's. The Tories didn't throw Cameron overboard because they knew he was the best they had. Labour will be even less inclined to do so with Starmer, because he is the best they have by a country mile. I can see that and I am not a Labour supporter.
I agree.
Labour have nobody near him at this time, even though it seems he is not cutting through by as much as one may expect
Still early days. Do we really need an inspirational Tony Blair figure for 2024? By the time we get to 2024, the last thing we will need or want is another bull******, uninspiring and competent will fit the bill perfectly.
It's worth remembering that when Blair became Labour leader Labour already had a sizeable lead in the polls and the party was a few years into a detoxification process. He built on work already begun. Starmer inherited a very different position.
Given how crap the government has proved to be, it is pretty clear that the reason it remains ahead in the polling is largely a Labour issue. There is a lot more work to be done. I doubt many people serious about Labour winning again would dispute that.
It is also worth remembering that Tony Blair did inspire a lot of people. It's harder to remember on the wrong side of Iraq, tuition fees, and the general grubbiness that being in power stains you with, that Blair was like a rock star in 90s. I never voted for him, but it was an exciting time for many.
Blair was the real deal, but he also had a very strong supporting cast. Labour looked like the government long before it took charge. I think a fair few people could imagine Starmer in Downing Street, but there is no Gordon Brown to stand beside him - or a Cook, a Mandelson, a Mowlam, a Straw etc etc. That is the challenge Labour has. Voters probably would not mind the party's leader as PM, but they want Rishi Sunak running the economy. Things can change, though.
Yeah the Labour shadow cabinet is wank.
I tell you who Labour need right now...Ed Balls. He's only 53 and been around the block a few times and isn't as hated as he used to be.
He'd be a good shadow chancellor, much better than er....who is it again? Give some bung to a Labour MP in a safe seat and get him back in parliament.
Actually the Tories could do with some of their old guard back, Cameron, Osborne and Hague who are all still young enough. Why do politicians seem to retire so young these days?
Ed Balls seems a nicer person OUT of politics. I find he genuinely comes across well now.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
To be fair, without the cost of my mortgage (which is around £700 per month) I could easily survive on £1,000 a month. I recognise that I have no dependents though.
*Without* the cost of your mortgage. Problem is that low paid jobs / UC mean you have to pay your bills. Its not just a crisis for the bottom decile, the "squeezed middle" struggle to cope with some of the absurdly high costs of living we face in the UK.
Our local Citizens Advice has been swamped by squeezed middle people dropped onto UC thanks to the loss of their job. From the anecdotes I have heard what they can get - or usually can't get - has been a real shock.
I thought Housing Benefit covered a proportion of housing costs?
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
You could be right. I am probably applying my own bias, because despite being a Conservative supporter, I always thought he was a revolting weasel.
In terms of ads Biden is putting a lot out nationally rather than on local state tv . It actually works out cheaper that way in terms of voter reach . So he does have a presence in Texas and other super pacs are still running some more locally .
His latest ad is narrated by Sam Elliott and is really Biden’s closing message about bringing the country together . It’s being shown during the World Series and apparently cost 4 million dollars to air in that slot .
So Biden is doing national ads rather than ads just focused on key swing states, not holding any rallies in the key swing states over the last week (apart from sending Obama to do a drive in event in Philadelphia yesterday) and not doing any ground game.
Meanwhile Trump has held rallies in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina within the last 10 days and has had his activists go door to door to id supporters across the MidWest.
It looks like Biden is yet again risking a Hillary, fighting to win the national popular vote which he likely will while Trump focuses on winning the Electoral College where the election is actually decided
If rallies were a marker for whose going to win then Corbyn would have been PM in 2017!
Super pacs play a large part of the ads for each campaign and they’re still running in the swing states and Biden still has some of his own . Putting ads nationally still means those run locally aswell because most local stations are affiliated with the main broadcasters .
Corbyn gained 30 seats in 2017 and May's 2% popular vote lead was the same as Hillary's in 2016.
By 2019 significantly more were at Boris rallies than had been at May ralllies in 2017 and there was more enthusiasm for Boris than there had been for May, Corbyn's rallies were less well attended with less enthusiasm than 2 years before.
Obama's rallies were bigger and more enthusiastic than McCain's in 2008 and Romney's in 2012, same with Bush's rallies in 2004 compared to Kerry's
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
To be fair, without the cost of my mortgage (which is around £700 per month) I could easily survive on £1,000 a month. I recognise that I have no dependents though.
*Without* the cost of your mortgage. Problem is that low paid jobs / UC mean you have to pay your bills. Its not just a crisis for the bottom decile, the "squeezed middle" struggle to cope with some of the absurdly high costs of living we face in the UK.
Our local Citizens Advice has been swamped by squeezed middle people dropped onto UC thanks to the loss of their job. From the anecdotes I have heard what they can get - or usually can't get - has been a real shock.
I thought Housing Benefit covered a proportion of housing costs?
I've always liked the fact you can get housing benefit to pay someone else's mortgage but not your own.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
To be fair, without the cost of my mortgage (which is around £700 per month) I could easily survive on £1,000 a month. I recognise that I have no dependents though.
*Without* the cost of your mortgage. Problem is that low paid jobs / UC mean you have to pay your bills. Its not just a crisis for the bottom decile, the "squeezed middle" struggle to cope with some of the absurdly high costs of living we face in the UK.
Our local Citizens Advice has been swamped by squeezed middle people dropped onto UC thanks to the loss of their job. From the anecdotes I have heard what they can get - or usually can't get - has been a real shock.
I thought Housing Benefit covered a proportion of housing costs?
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
£1000/ month, £250/ week with multiple children must be heaven
I note you missed my saying "well over" and that I never said heaven.
Someone working Full Time minimum wage only takes home a comparable amount after tax and national insurance too.
Plus once more you missed the fact I made a specific proposal as to how the system should be made more generous by slashing the taper rate.
So what more do you want me to say?
Unfortunately many think £1000 a month adequate not really getting at you. Although to be honest €1000 a month is the normal income in Spain for a very large proportion of the population with little differentiation between a petrol pump attendant and say a town hall clerk. The €1000 is take home and people do seem to mange but it’s cheaper out here across the board.
The thing is food in the UK is now incredibly cheap. A bag of potatoes in Aldi is 30 pence. A loaf of bread is 35 pence. You can get bags of decent food for £20. And if you hang around for the reductions its amazing what you can get. When I was bought up in the 70s food accounted for 30% of the average salary. I doubt now its more than 7%. To give a child a lunch of say jacket potato with beans will cost less than 20 pence.
If you live near an Aldi. Or indeed a supermarket of any kind.
You would have to live well in the Countryside to not be within 5 miles of a major supermarket
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
To be fair, without the cost of my mortgage (which is around £700 per month) I could easily survive on £1,000 a month. I recognise that I have no dependents though.
*Without* the cost of your mortgage. Problem is that low paid jobs / UC mean you have to pay your bills. Its not just a crisis for the bottom decile, the "squeezed middle" struggle to cope with some of the absurdly high costs of living we face in the UK.
Our local Citizens Advice has been swamped by squeezed middle people dropped onto UC thanks to the loss of their job. From the anecdotes I have heard what they can get - or usually can't get - has been a real shock.
I thought Housing Benefit covered a proportion of housing costs?
HB is part of UC too.
You learn something new every day. I must admit I know very little about UC and the benefit system generally.
In terms of ads Biden is putting a lot out nationally rather than on local state tv . It actually works out cheaper that way in terms of voter reach . So he does have a presence in Texas and other super pacs are still running some more locally .
His latest ad is narrated by Sam Elliott and is really Biden’s closing message about bringing the country together . It’s being shown during the World Series and apparently cost 4 million dollars to air in that slot .
So Biden is doing national ads rather than ads just focused on key swing states, not holding any rallies in the key swing states over the last week (apart from sending Obama to do a drive in event in Philadelphia yesterday) and not doing any ground game.
Meanwhile Trump has held rallies in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina within the last 10 days and has had his activists go door to door to id supporters across the MidWest.
It looks like Biden is yet again risking a Hillary, fighting to win the national popular vote which he likely will while Trump focuses on winning the Electoral College where the election is actually decided
If rallies were a marker for whose going to win then Corbyn would have been PM in 2017!
Super pacs play a large part of the ads for each campaign and they’re still running in the swing states and Biden still has some of his own . Putting ads nationally still means those run locally aswell because most local stations are affiliated with the main broadcasters .
Which one of them is respecting the safety of the people who are making the house calls and those they visit? Going door to door in a pandemic is just stupid, even more stupid is holding rallies
On topic, my accurate, tested, and flawless prediction for the Presidential election is that there is a 100% chance that one of Trump or Biden will win.
Someone thinks Hillary might win and will take 970/1
I've been laying Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama in this race like I laid David Milliband in the last two Labour leadership contests.
The only problem with these sorts of lays is that we have no idea when the WH2020 market will be settled. If it is close and there are court cases it could take ages.
Pretty desperate stuff. When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer. It reminds me of the guff that Labour supporters used to put out about Cameron. Remember those? Cameron was a chameleon, a lightweight, no experience, a SPAD. None of it worked, because the electorate eventually worked out that Gordon Brown was essentially a pretty useless leader and PM. Gordo looks like a colossus compared to Shagger, and I would say Starmer's back story is a lot lot stronger than Cameron's. The Tories didn't throw Cameron overboard because they knew he was the best they had. Labour will be even less inclined to do so with Starmer, because he is the best they have by a country mile. I can see that and I am not a Labour supporter.
I agree.
Labour have nobody near him at this time, even though it seems he is not cutting through by as much as one may expect
Still early days. Do we really need an inspirational Tony Blair figure for 2024? By the time we get to 2024, the last thing we will need or want is another bull******, uninspiring and competent will fit the bill perfectly.
It's worth remembering that when Blair became Labour leader Labour already had a sizeable lead in the polls and the party was a few years into a detoxification process. He built on work already begun. Starmer inherited a very different position.
Given how crap the government has proved to be, it is pretty clear that the reason it remains ahead in the polling is largely a Labour issue. There is a lot more work to be done. I doubt many people serious about Labour winning again would dispute that.
It is also worth remembering that Tony Blair did inspire a lot of people. It's harder to remember on the wrong side of Iraq, tuition fees, and the general grubbiness that being in power stains you with, that Blair was like a rock star in 90s. I never voted for him, but it was an exciting time for many.
Blair was the real deal, but he also had a very strong supporting cast. Labour looked like the government long before it took charge. I think a fair few people could imagine Starmer in Downing Street, but there is no Gordon Brown to stand beside him - or a Cook, a Mandelson, a Mowlam, a Straw etc etc. That is the challenge Labour has. Voters probably would not mind the party's leader as PM, but they want Rishi Sunak running the economy. Things can change, though.
Yeah the Labour shadow cabinet is wank.
I tell you who Labour need right now...Ed Balls. He's only 53 and been around the block a few times and isn't as hated as he used to be.
He'd be a good shadow chancellor, much better than er....who is it again? Give some bung to a Labour MP in a safe seat and get him back in parliament.
Actually the Tories could do with some of their old guard back, Cameron, Osborne and Hague who are all still young enough. Why do politicians seem to retire so young these days?
Ed Balls seems a nicer person OUT of politics. I find he genuinely comes across well now.
He is, when Ed Balls was Shadow Chancellor and George Osborne was Chancellor, George babysat some of Ed's kids.
Someone once said once Ed Balls left Gordon Brown's shadow then he became a much nicer human being, being Gordon Brown's consigliere must be bad for the soul.
This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.
This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
As my wife has just put it "there is an inability for too many people in England to put themselves in other people's shoes". I have no problem if England wants to descend into the right wing pit - that's free choice. I've had enough of it. "If you don't like it go and live somewhere else" say some Tories. OK, I will.
It is remarkable how some people are so devoid of empathy. They simply assert that of course you can feed a family easily on benefits, and fall back on lazy stereotypes about booze and fags, feckless parents and the like. The poverty line for a single parent with one kid is about £200 per week after housing costs. Many millions of families on benefits including those in work are below that level, especially after post-2010 cuts. That £200 has to cover not just food but travel costs, clothing including school uniform, utilities, school trips, furniture and appliances, internet access and phone bills, and any sudden and lumpy costs like repairing your car. It's really not hard to see how that leaves many struggling to provide food at times, and indeed it is easy to find accounts by those affected explaining in great detail. And yet, through sheer arrogance and lack of empathy, people who have never wondered how they will stretch the last tenner to the end of the week, or how they will afford a winter coat for their child, or seen their kid bring the only one in her class who doesn't go on the school trip, are happy to bleat on about how people just need to be better at budgeting. It's really disgusting, and I don't blame you for moving to Scotland, where in all honesty people actually are nicer.
Lol - stereotyping a whole country comes do easily to the left. The English are just scum, as someone once said.
Its amazing why those migrants are prepared to risk their lives to cross the channel rather than staying in France seeing how terrible everything is in England.
Because they speak English not French and their relatives are in England not France, don’t be so bloody stupid.
The fact that people like Nerys are unable to attribute normal human motives to migrants shows just how successful the dehumanisation campaign has been. It's a truly sad state of affairs.
Those are economic migration reasons though not refugee reasons. So if they wish to apply for economic migration then fair enough there is a procedure for that.
"Refugee" and "economic migrant" are miscible categories. The fact that someone is one, doesn't not stop them also being the other. Would be good if everyone could remember that.
If someone wants to move here permanently for work - rather than to take temporary refuge from conflict or persecution - then we rightly have a process for that.
Confusing them doesn't do justice to either.
Exactly wrong. By pretending that someone is EITHER fleeing from danger OR seeking better fortunes is to reduce complex messy situations into binaries. When you impose arbitrary classifications on people, that is exactly the way you arrive at absurdity and injustice. As a general rule, we should avoid classification heuristics because they dehumanise. If a refugee admits to wanting to live with friends in one particular country, it doesn't mean they're a fake asylum seeker. If someone claims persecution it doesn't follow it's definitely real. If someone is a member of the Conservative Party they aren't "scum" by default. If someone voted Leave they aren't necessarily racist. If someone voted Remain they aren't necessarily a haughty elitist. If someone questions inequality, envy need not play any part. And so on. We make these classifications to make it easier to hold onto our opinions and dismiss situations where reality might intrude.
If a refugee wants to live with friends in another country they can apply for a visa to get to that country.
If a refugee wants safety they can apply for it where they are safe to do so.
What is safe; where you are not actually attacked, or where you feel you can speak enough of the language to get by, make a new start etc?
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
You could be right. I am probably applying my own bias, because despite being a Conservative supporter, I always thought he was a revolting weasel.
Part of the problem is that he has the face of a revolting weasel. That matters. It shouldn't, but it does. In contrast, Sunak has a very pleasant, amiable countenance. People who know nothing about politics or economics will make their judgements, if they make one at all, on that basis.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
If the word "scum" applies to anyone it is to the Super SPAD himself, friend and string puller of our empty suited Prime Minister. This, if accurate, is absolutely outrageous, some might even suspect that it is corrupt:
I'm no fan of Cummings, but what's outrageous about it? It seems to be the standard Valuation Office practice. Maybe it shouldn't be, but that's a different point.
Simple guide. Universal Credit replaced 6 benefits. Housing Benefit. Working Tax Credit. Child Tax Credit. Jobseekers. ESA (sickness and temporary disability). Income Support.
Some people are still on them (legacy), but you cannot claim any of these as a new claimant. (Apart from tiny exceptions). If your circumstances change you are moved onto UC (migration). So you cannot say UC is £x pw, but what about y? Y no longer exists.
You are completely ineligible with savings of £16 k.
One of the arguments made by lockdown sceptic Sunetra Gupta is the danger of 100m people dying of starvation due to our covid response. Not completely unrelated to the FSM debate.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
To be fair, without the cost of my mortgage (which is around £700 per month) I could easily survive on £1,000 a month. I recognise that I have no dependents though.
*Without* the cost of your mortgage. Problem is that low paid jobs / UC mean you have to pay your bills. Its not just a crisis for the bottom decile, the "squeezed middle" struggle to cope with some of the absurdly high costs of living we face in the UK.
Our local Citizens Advice has been swamped by squeezed middle people dropped onto UC thanks to the loss of their job. From the anecdotes I have heard what they can get - or usually can't get - has been a real shock.
I thought Housing Benefit covered a proportion of housing costs?
I've always liked the fact you can get housing benefit to pay someone else's mortgage but not your own.
On topic, my accurate, tested, and flawless prediction for the Presidential election is that there is a 100% chance that one of Trump or Biden will win.
Someone thinks Hillary might win and will take 970/1
I've been laying Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama in this race like I laid David Milliband in the last two Labour leadership contests.
The only problem with these sorts of lays is that we have no idea when the WH2020 market will be settled. If it is close and there are court cases it could take ages.
It's fine, either way this market is likely to settled by the 20th of January 2021, I can wait until then, plus I'm not sure this SCOTUS will make either Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama President.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
People on UC get more money than some people working full time? And there are calls to give them even more?
No wonder more and more people are not bothering to better themselves.
This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.
This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
As my wife has just put it "there is an inability for too many people in England to put themselves in other people's shoes". I have no problem if England wants to descend into the right wing pit - that's free choice. I've had enough of it. "If you don't like it go and live somewhere else" say some Tories. OK, I will.
This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.
This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
As my wife has just put it "there is an inability for too many people in England to put themselves in other people's shoes". I have no problem if England wants to descend into the right wing pit - that's free choice. I've had enough of it. "If you don't like it go and live somewhere else" say some Tories. OK, I will.
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
You could be right. I am probably applying my own bias, because despite being a Conservative supporter, I always thought he was a revolting weasel.
Part of the problem is that he has the face of a revolting weasel. That matters. It shouldn't, but it does. In contrast, Sunak has a very pleasant, amiable countenance. People who know nothing about politics or economics will make their judgements, if they make one at all, on that basis.
*Without* the cost of your mortgage. Problem is that low paid jobs / UC mean you have to pay your bills. Its not just a crisis for the bottom decile, the "squeezed middle" struggle to cope with some of the absurdly high costs of living we face in the UK.
Our local Citizens Advice has been swamped by squeezed middle people dropped onto UC thanks to the loss of their job. From the anecdotes I have heard what they can get - or usually can't get - has been a real shock.
The study found nearly half the people rejected for unemployment benefits between March and July reported increased financial strains, while more than half reported problems with mental health, and around one in six said they had struggled to afford food."
"Roughly half those rejected were graduates, and a third were in professional or managerial jobs, the study found. Over half reported losing at least 25% of their household income. Nearly two-thirds said they were unsure how they would cope financially when they heard they did not qualify for benefits."
"The study, by the Economic and Social Research Council-funded Benefits at a Social Distance project, found nearly three-quarters were surprised when they were refused benefits, or said it was “unfair”."
When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer.
They don't fear him. Why the fuck should they? If insufficient people will vote for him in the current circumstances then what, exactly, has to happen for him to get a sustained poll lead?
Of course they fear him, and with good reason. They perhaps don't fear the rest of the Labour front bench very much, but they definitely fear Starmer which is why all the trite "Starmer is boring" memes, because they cannot get anything else to stick.
They fear him because he is clever and their leader is, well, totally shit! The less swivelly-eyed/less stupid Tories (not many of those left) know that eventually the disinterested electorate will catch up with this. IMO, the reason why the polls haven't moved very much thus far is because most people are interested in other things. Additionally people rarely like to think they have been conned, so for the time being the less politically interested will give Shagger the benefit of the doubt, in the same way as they may have given their decision to vote Brexit the benefit of the doubt. As others have mentioned, Starmer will need to get some of the more talented old guard back. At the moment his front bench is as lightweight and vacuous as the government one. When that inevitably changes so will the polls, and Shagger will be well and truly shagged.
If it was up to me I would eliminate all means tested benefits including but not limited to Universal Credit including Housing Benefit, merge that system with National Insurance and Income Tax so that everyone has a single tax rate.
Taper of welfare is no different on a marginal basis to Tax.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
Looking into it, the same person would get £409.89 per month on UC, plus maybe £400 per month on the housing element (using my own postcode). The eligibility for such element is complicated though and I don't fully understand it.
So you're right it's not far off, especially when you factor in children. However minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum you need to meet your needs, so I guess it makes sense that it is similar.
You are right that it does weaken the incentive to work.
This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.
This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
As my wife has just put it "there is an inability for too many people in England to put themselves in other people's shoes". I have no problem if England wants to descend into the right wing pit - that's free choice. I've had enough of it. "If you don't like it go and live somewhere else" say some Tories. OK, I will.
It is remarkable how some people are so devoid of empathy. They simply assert that of course you can feed a family easily on benefits, and fall back on lazy stereotypes about booze and fags, feckless parents and the like. The poverty line for a single parent with one kid is about £200 per week after housing costs. Many millions of families on benefits including those in work are below that level, especially after post-2010 cuts. That £200 has to cover not just food but travel costs, clothing including school uniform, utilities, school trips, furniture and appliances, internet access and phone bills, and any sudden and lumpy costs like repairing your car. It's really not hard to see how that leaves many struggling to provide food at times, and indeed it is easy to find accounts by those affected explaining in great detail. And yet, through sheer arrogance and lack of empathy, people who have never wondered how they will stretch the last tenner to the end of the week, or how they will afford a winter coat for their child, or seen their kid bring the only one in her class who doesn't go on the school trip, are happy to bleat on about how people just need to be better at budgeting. It's really disgusting, and I don't blame you for moving to Scotland, where in all honesty people actually are nicer.
Lol - stereotyping a whole country comes do easily to the left. The English are just scum, as someone once said.
Its amazing why those migrants are prepared to risk their lives to cross the channel rather than staying in France seeing how terrible everything is in England.
Because they speak English not French and their relatives are in England not France, don’t be so bloody stupid.
The fact that people like Nerys are unable to attribute normal human motives to migrants shows just how successful the dehumanisation campaign has been. It's a truly sad state of affairs.
Those are economic migration reasons though not refugee reasons. So if they wish to apply for economic migration then fair enough there is a procedure for that.
"Refugee" and "economic migrant" are miscible categories. The fact that someone is one, doesn't not stop them also being the other. Would be good if everyone could remember that.
If someone wants to move here permanently for work - rather than to take temporary refuge from conflict or persecution - then we rightly have a process for that.
Confusing them doesn't do justice to either.
Exactly wrong. By pretending that someone is EITHER fleeing from danger OR seeking better fortunes is to reduce complex messy situations into binaries. When you impose arbitrary classifications on people, that is exactly the way you arrive at absurdity and injustice. As a general rule, we should avoid classification heuristics because they dehumanise. If a refugee admits to wanting to live with friends in one particular country, it doesn't mean they're a fake asylum seeker. If someone claims persecution it doesn't follow it's definitely real. If someone is a member of the Conservative Party they aren't "scum" by default. If someone voted Leave they aren't necessarily racist. If someone voted Remain they aren't necessarily a haughty elitist. If someone questions inequality, envy need not play any part. And so on. We make these classifications to make it easier to hold onto our opinions and dismiss situations where reality might intrude.
If a refugee wants to live with friends in another country they can apply for a visa to get to that country.
If a refugee wants safety they can apply for it where they are safe to do so.
What is safe; where you are not actually attacked, or where you feel you can speak enough of the language to get by, make a new start etc?
The more generous the benefits in a country the safer it appears to be to refugees.
This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.
This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
As my wife has just put it "there is an inability for too many people in England to put themselves in other people's shoes". I have no problem if England wants to descend into the right wing pit - that's free choice. I've had enough of it. "If you don't like it go and live somewhere else" say some Tories. OK, I will.
It is remarkable how some people are so devoid of empathy. They simply assert that of course you can feed a family easily on benefits, and fall back on lazy stereotypes about booze and fags, feckless parents and the like. The poverty line for a single parent with one kid is about £200 per week after housing costs. Many millions of families on benefits including those in work are below that level, especially after post-2010 cuts. That £200 has to cover not just food but travel costs, clothing including school uniform, utilities, school trips, furniture and appliances, internet access and phone bills, and any sudden and lumpy costs like repairing your car. It's really not hard to see how that leaves many struggling to provide food at times, and indeed it is easy to find accounts by those affected explaining in great detail. And yet, through sheer arrogance and lack of empathy, people who have never wondered how they will stretch the last tenner to the end of the week, or how they will afford a winter coat for their child, or seen their kid bring the only one in her class who doesn't go on the school trip, are happy to bleat on about how people just need to be better at budgeting. It's really disgusting, and I don't blame you for moving to Scotland, where in all honesty people actually are nicer.
The only time I ever experienced serious racism was in Scotland.
I am sorry to hear it. What happened?
Thanks, obviously well over it now. I was thirteen in Dumfries. Weekend shopping trip. Four local boys heard me asking for something in WHSmith with an English accent.
They then followed me down a side alley and one of them punched me in the side of my face calling me a "English c**t" whilst laughing.
I didn't react just wriggled free and escaped to the police station, who were understanding and sympathetic - and found the incident on CCTV - but couldn't do anything.
Whilst terrible I am sure we could spend all day on similar occurences in England. There is very very little of that happens in Scotland or England , isolated to a few nutters and I fail to see how it is connected to free school meals in England for hungry children.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
People on UC get more money than some people working full time? And there are calls to give them even more?
No wonder more and more people are not bothering to better themselves.
People on UC includes people working full time.
And yes they should get more, by eliminating the taper rate/merging it with income tax then people could better themselves by earning more. Instead of being punitively taxed at rates ranging from 63% to 90% effective income tax.
If it was up to me I would eliminate all means tested benefits including but not limited to Universal Credit including Housing Benefit, merge that system with National Insurance and Income Tax so that everyone has a single tax rate.
Taper of welfare is no different on a marginal basis to Tax.
If it was up to me I would eliminate all means tested benefits including but not limited to Universal Credit including Housing Benefit, merge that system with National Insurance and Income Tax so that everyone has a single tax rate.
Taper of welfare is no different on a marginal basis to Tax.
What should be done is to have a more contributory based system built around National Insurance like most western nations do so if you contribute more into the system you get more benefits out if you need them
If it was up to me I would eliminate all means tested benefits including but not limited to Universal Credit including Housing Benefit, merge that system with National Insurance and Income Tax so that everyone has a single tax rate.
Taper of welfare is no different on a marginal basis to Tax.
Thankfully nothing of import is up to you.
Go on then please defend why we should tax the poorest in society by at least 63% and up to 90% or more. Please justify that.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
£1000/ month, £250/ week with multiple children must be heaven
I note you missed my saying "well over" and that I never said heaven.
Someone working Full Time minimum wage only takes home a comparable amount after tax and national insurance too.
Plus once more you missed the fact I made a specific proposal as to how the system should be made more generous by slashing the taper rate.
So what more do you want me to say?
Unfortunately many think £1000 a month adequate not really getting at you. Although to be honest €1000 a month is the normal income in Spain for a very large proportion of the population with little differentiation between a petrol pump attendant and say a town hall clerk. The €1000 is take home and people do seem to mange but it’s cheaper out here across the board.
The thing is food in the UK is now incredibly cheap. A bag of potatoes in Aldi is 30 pence. A loaf of bread is 35 pence. You can get bags of decent food for £20. And if you hang around for the reductions its amazing what you can get. When I was bought up in the 70s food accounted for 30% of the average salary. I doubt now its more than 7%. To give a child a lunch of say jacket potato with beans will cost less than 20 pence.
If you live near an Aldi. Or indeed a supermarket of any kind.
You would have to live well in the Countryside to not be within 5 miles of a major supermarket
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
People on UC get more money than some people working full time? And there are calls to give them even more?
No wonder more and more people are not bothering to better themselves.
People on UC includes people working full time.
And yes they should get more, by eliminating the taper rate/merging it with income tax then people could better themselves by earning more. Instead of being punitively taxed at rates ranging from 63% to 90% effective income tax.
Well I agree there are ridiculous disincentives to work, I have no idea why successive governments refuse to tackle it.
I am up for a UBI as well, it's a matter of time I feel.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
Looking into it, the same person would get £409.89 per month on UC, plus maybe £400 per month on the housing element (using my own postcode). The eligibility for such element is complicated though and I don't fully understand it.
So you're right it's not far off, especially when you factor in children. However minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum you need to meet your needs, so I guess it makes sense that it is similar.
You are right that it does weaken the incentive to work.
Thank you.
I want the poorest in society taxed less so people keep more if they earn more. People should not think it is not worth working because if they do they'll lose their benefits.
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
You could be right. I am probably applying my own bias, because despite being a Conservative supporter, I always thought he was a revolting weasel.
Part of the problem is that he has the face of a revolting weasel. That matters. It shouldn't, but it does. In contrast, Sunak has a very pleasant, amiable countenance. People who know nothing about politics or economics will make their judgements, if they make one at all, on that basis.
Lamont is surprisingly pleasant in person.
Indeed, he is one of the first senior politicians I met.
I met him briefly in the 1999 Kensington and Chelsea by election in a pub when I was campaigning for Michael Portillo and he signed one of my leaflets
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
You could be right. I am probably applying my own bias, because despite being a Conservative supporter, I always thought he was a revolting weasel.
Part of the problem is that he has the face of a revolting weasel. That matters. It shouldn't, but it does. In contrast, Sunak has a very pleasant, amiable countenance. People who know nothing about politics or economics will make their judgements, if they make one at all, on that basis.
Lamont is surprisingly pleasant in person.
A lot of politicians are in my experience. I was really surprised how charismatic John Major was in person.
RCP is garbage, they leave out most of the polls. There's no point in using them for any kind of comparison, and their data shouldn't brought up in any conversation except "WTF happened to RCP, that site used to be pretty good back in the day"
Yet RCP was closer to the final result than 538 in 2016, 538 had Hillary winning with over 300 EC votes.
It seems most on here have learnt nothing from 2016, then the final Wisconsin average had Hillary up by 7% but Trump won the state by 0.7% for example
At least we've learned that Hilary isn't running this time.
Blair also won due to a subtle agreement with the Lib Dems. Corbyn was more about winning the Labour Party, so had no interest in aligning with social democrats, much less Orange Bookers. I just can't see that happening under Starmer and Davey.
I expect a fairly stable minority government of Labour, supported by the Lib Dems. SNP will also support them until late into government. Expect some Devo max and alignment with the EU/EEA to stave off independence.
With this scenario of nod-and-a-wink cooperation, the electoral calculator becomes compromised and Portillo events take place with the likes of Jacob RM.
Not a hope , devo max is never going to happen , been there and been lied to so Labour will not get away with that one again. Only hope of any deal will be cast iron referendum , if they have not already got that one in place. Wipeout next year will mean referendum or independence sooner rather than later.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Student loan repayments start at £18k or £21k iirc, the minimum wage is under both of those, the mandatory pension is 5% employee contribution but it's pre-tax and doesn't make a huge difference to take home pay.
It looks as though Sunak is gradually getting towards the targeted support which he should have implemented in the first place. I suspect it will still leave lots of businesses, and lots of people, in the lurch, though.
When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer.
They don't fear him. Why the fuck should they? If insufficient people will vote for him in the current circumstances then what, exactly, has to happen for him to get a sustained poll lead?
Of course they fear him, and with good reason. They perhaps don't fear the rest of the Labour front bench very much, but they definitely fear Starmer which is why all the trite "Starmer is boring" memes, because they cannot get anything else to stick.
They fear him because he is clever and their leader is, well, totally shit! The less swivelly-eyed/less stupid Tories (not many of those left) know that eventually the disinterested electorate will catch up with this. IMO, the reason why the polls haven't moved very much thus far is because most people are interested in other things. Additionally people rarely like to think they have been conned, so for the time being the less politically interested will give Shagger the benefit of the doubt, in the same way as they may have given their decision to vote Brexit the benefit of the doubt. As others have mentioned, Starmer will need to get some of the more talented old guard back. At the moment his front bench is as lightweight and vacuous as the government one. When that inevitably changes so will the polls, and Shagger will be well and truly shagged.
I hope so but I'm not sure. What sort of opposition do Labour need to be to maximize their chances of winning the next election? Not so much how “left” or “centrist” – that can wait – but the tone to adopt. Aggressive and rhetorical or muted and managerial? This is broadly the choice imo and we’ve just witnessed a striking contrast between the Manchester and South Yorkshire response to Tier 3 funding which illustrates it perfectly.
Manchester, we see Andy Burnham, out on the steps of the town hall with supporters massed behind him, dressed in tight trousers and bomber jacket, 50 going on 35, really giving it some. One couldn’t help but think subliminally of Paris 68 and the likes of Daniel Cohn Bendit. Or perhaps a closer fit, the shipyards of Gdansk in 1980 and Lech Walesa.
Switch to Sheffield and it’s Dan Jarvis, like Burnham a one-time betting fav for Labour leader but this is all there was in common. No pugnacious theatre from him, simply a one-on-one interview in a tranquil square with local TV. Suit, tie, placid demeanour, and a low key conversational exchange, informing us – yawn – that he’d agreed a suitable funding package with the government. It was pure Halifax branch manager (from back when they had them).
So which one hits the spot? Which is the better template for Labour in opposition? I don’t know. You watch a Jarvis and you’re reassured somewhat but your pulse remains resolutely steady. Burnham gets it racing - but do floating voters want that from a Labour politician? As I say, I don’t know. I know what I prefer but that’s not the important metric.
I see resounding silence from @Nigel_Foremain in why he thinks it is appropriate for the poorest in society to be taxed at least 63% on their marginal income and potentially over 90%. Funny that, easy to make snide remarks from the sidelines.
It looks as though Sunak is gradually getting towards the targeted support which he should have implemented in the first place. I suspect it will still leave lots of businesses, and lots of people, in the lurch, though.
I think it will mean pubs and restaurants will be better off closed most of the time
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
I just put a single unemployed 26-year-old into a benefits calculator and the allowance is £410 a month. Plus an allowance for housing and council tax.
He's been behind the curve all along. I remember saying on March 11th that his budget was a nonsense because it took almost no account of the looming Covid-19 effect on the economy. It lasted all of a few days before he had to throw it in the bin.
Now, to be fair, this isn't an easy gig, but it should have been obvious by August that more targeted support would be needed.
North Carolina absentee ballot return rates seem to have dropped precipitously (More so than say Wisconsin which has a similiar number of ballots). I wonder if some of the ballot requesters are in fact voting in person there now (Not an option in WI) ?
This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.
This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
As my wife has just put it "there is an inability for too many people in England to put themselves in other people's shoes". I have no problem if England wants to descend into the right wing pit - that's free choice. I've had enough of it. "If you don't like it go and live somewhere else" say some Tories. OK, I will.
It is remarkable how some people are so devoid of empathy. They simply assert that of course you can feed a family easily on benefits, and fall back on lazy stereotypes about booze and fags, feckless parents and the like. The poverty line for a single parent with one kid is about £200 per week after housing costs. Many millions of families on benefits including those in work are below that level, especially after post-2010 cuts. That £200 has to cover not just food but travel costs, clothing including school uniform, utilities, school trips, furniture and appliances, internet access and phone bills, and any sudden and lumpy costs like repairing your car. It's really not hard to see how that leaves many struggling to provide food at times, and indeed it is easy to find accounts by those affected explaining in great detail. And yet, through sheer arrogance and lack of empathy, people who have never wondered how they will stretch the last tenner to the end of the week, or how they will afford a winter coat for their child, or seen their kid bring the only one in her class who doesn't go on the school trip, are happy to bleat on about how people just need to be better at budgeting. It's really disgusting, and I don't blame you for moving to Scotland, where in all honesty people actually are nicer.
Lol - stereotyping a whole country comes do easily to the left. The English are just scum, as someone once said.
If that's what you take from my post then I think it says it all. I'm just observing that having lived in both countries, the English seem much more ready to imagine the worst of their fellow countrymen, especially the poor. Anyway,if you knew your Trainspotting, you would know that the English are not scum, but wankers. 😉
Try substituting black for English in your post. It might give you a clue.
Except if I did that I would be making a baseless claim based on race rather than asserting something for which there is evidence (eg in voting behaviour and to a lesser extent in polling on attitudes to poverty and government redistribution, where Scots are more left wing on average) and for which I have first hand experience, having lived for considerable time in both countries. Do you genuinely believe that there are no differences in social attitudes between different countries?
I believe the large rump of every country is filled with decent, sympathetic, caring human beings and that there is a tail of people who are none of those things.
I also believe that opponents and proponents of various such "national characteristic" theories prefer to swap one for the other as it suits them.
Perhaps you can also help by defining some other "English" traits.
RCP is garbage, they leave out most of the polls. There's no point in using them for any kind of comparison, and their data shouldn't brought up in any conversation except "WTF happened to RCP, that site used to be pretty good back in the day"
Yet RCP was closer to the final result than 538 in 2016, 538 had Hillary winning with over 300 EC votes.
It seems most on here have learnt nothing from 2016, then the final Wisconsin average had Hillary up by 7% but Trump won the state by 0.7% for example
Just like at GE19 with polls showing a clear Con win I learnt nothing from 2017 when the polls also pointed to a clear Con win but we got a shock hung parliament. It was one of the most lucrative bits of non-education I've ever undertaken.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
I just put a single unemployed 26-year-old into a benefits calculator and the allowance is £410 a month. Plus an allowance for housing and council tax.
Is that without children?
Include housing etc and that is a comparable amount to someone working 30 hours a week on minimum wage.
If you include the taper, NI and Income Tax it means that the poorest in society can effectively be earning less than one pound per hour if they do an extra hours work.
Comments
Caroline Ansell resigned as a parliamentary private secretary to the environment secretary, saying she "could not in all conscience ignore" her belief the policy would benefit families struggling during the pandemic.
She said she backed Labour's motion, which was defeated in the House of Commons last night, because "I am very concerned to be doing all we can to help lower-income families and their children who are really struggling due to the impact of the virus".
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-caroline-ansell-resigns-from-government-over-free-school-meals-rebellion-12111057
I realise politics isn't exactly the most glamourous job, but if being chairman of a football team or editing the Evening Standard is preferable to running the country then we're all in a lot of trouble.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
Apprentice - £739
Under 18 - £1048
21-24 - £1332
25+ - £1417
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1319087577983582209
Means tested benefits are what traps people in poverty. There should be nothing that is means tested. Some say that you're giving to the rich but so what? They're the ones paying for it in the first place. Tapering benefits means we tax the poorest more than the richest.
https://twitter.com/mlevitt_np2013?lang=en
They clung on because the economy was fine in spite of almost every other issue. Once that was kicked away, there was nothing there.
Money Week showed in 2015 that a family with 3 children and 1 parent working 24 hours a week on minimum wage will get benefits that top up their earnings to the equivalent of earning £40,500.
https://moneyweek.com/merryns-blog/the-truth-about-tax-credits
He inherited an economic mess and managed a way out of recession.
The ERM was Major's fault.
Prudes didn't like him renting his flat to a dominatrix.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
Our local Citizens Advice has been swamped by squeezed middle people dropped onto UC thanks to the loss of their job. From the anecdotes I have heard what they can get - or usually can't get - has been a real shock.
Sophie Wilmes, Belgian FM (45) is in ICU.
https://twitter.com/jon_trickett/status/1319168931857420293?s=21
Gross: £1,417
National Insurance: -£75
Income Tax: -£75
Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
This is the point. The Tories can't feed hungry kids. To do so is to accept that either the minimum wage or UC doesn't provide enough money to get by. The system is broken. So I am glad to hear that you support a progressive rebuilding of the system.
That must have completely passed me by.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/dominic-cummings-could-be-forced-to-pay-50-000-in-council-tax-previously-waived-by-officials/ar-BB1ahYRG?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds
Super pacs play a large part of the ads for each campaign and they’re still running in the swing states and Biden still has some of his own . Putting ads nationally still means those run locally aswell because most local stations are affiliated with the main broadcasters .
By 2019 significantly more were at Boris rallies than had been at May ralllies in 2017 and there was more enthusiasm for Boris than there had been for May, Corbyn's rallies were less well attended with less enthusiasm than 2 years before.
Obama's rallies were bigger and more enthusiastic than McCain's in 2008 and Romney's in 2012, same with Bush's rallies in 2004 compared to Kerry's
Sporting Index have a market on the number of times certain phrases will be used in tonight's debate. Some attractive Sells there, I think, but DYOR:
https://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/politics/american/group_b.7954c82b-3eb1-425c-9818-421427db875b/presidential-debate-2020-friday-23rd-october
Someone once said once Ed Balls left Gordon Brown's shadow then he became a much nicer human being, being Gordon Brown's consigliere must be bad for the soul.
In contrast, Sunak has a very pleasant, amiable countenance. People who know nothing about politics or economics will make their judgements, if they make one at all, on that basis.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
Universal Credit replaced 6 benefits.
Housing Benefit.
Working Tax Credit.
Child Tax Credit.
Jobseekers.
ESA (sickness and temporary disability).
Income Support.
Some people are still on them (legacy), but you cannot claim any of these as a new claimant. (Apart from tiny exceptions). If your circumstances change you are moved onto UC (migration).
So you cannot say UC is £x pw, but what about y?
Y no longer exists.
You are completely ineligible with savings of £16 k.
No wonder more and more people are not bothering to better themselves.
"Thousands of middle-income professionals who have lost their job during the pandemic have reported turning to food banks, going into debt and suffering from stress and anxiety after they were turned down for universal credit, research reveals.
The study found nearly half the people rejected for unemployment benefits between March and July reported increased financial strains, while more than half reported problems with mental health, and around one in six said they had struggled to afford food."
"Roughly half those rejected were graduates, and a third were in professional or managerial jobs, the study found. Over half reported losing at least 25% of their household income. Nearly two-thirds said they were unsure how they would cope financially when they heard they did not qualify for benefits."
"The study, by the Economic and Social Research Council-funded Benefits at a Social Distance project, found nearly three-quarters were surprised when they were refused benefits, or said it was “unfair”."
They fear him because he is clever and their leader is, well, totally shit! The less swivelly-eyed/less stupid Tories (not many of those left) know that eventually the disinterested electorate will catch up with this. IMO, the reason why the polls haven't moved very much thus far is because most people are interested in other things. Additionally people rarely like to think they have been conned, so for the time being the less politically interested will give Shagger the benefit of the doubt, in the same way as they may have given their decision to vote Brexit the benefit of the doubt. As others have mentioned, Starmer will need to get some of the more talented old guard back. At the moment his front bench is as lightweight and vacuous as the government one. When that inevitably changes so will the polls, and Shagger will be well and truly shagged.
Taper of welfare is no different on a marginal basis to Tax.
So you're right it's not far off, especially when you factor in children. However minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum you need to meet your needs, so I guess it makes sense that it is similar.
You are right that it does weaken the incentive to work.
And yes they should get more, by eliminating the taper rate/merging it with income tax then people could better themselves by earning more. Instead of being punitively taxed at rates ranging from 63% to 90% effective income tax.
@Cyclefree should be interested.
https://twitter.com/educationgovuk/status/1319189113858293760?s=20
Noticeable how often the government does this now. Have they not heard the maxim "if you're explaining, you're losing"?
https://www.atlas-mapping.com/blog/supermarket-locations-part-1/
I am up for a UBI as well, it's a matter of time I feel.
I want the poorest in society taxed less so people keep more if they earn more. People should not think it is not worth working because if they do they'll lose their benefits.
I met him briefly in the 1999 Kensington and Chelsea by election in a pub when I was campaigning for Michael Portillo and he signed one of my leaflets
Manchester, we see Andy Burnham, out on the steps of the town hall with supporters massed behind him, dressed in tight trousers and bomber jacket, 50 going on 35, really giving it some. One couldn’t help but think subliminally of Paris 68 and the likes of Daniel Cohn Bendit. Or perhaps a closer fit, the shipyards of Gdansk in 1980 and Lech Walesa.
Switch to Sheffield and it’s Dan Jarvis, like Burnham a one-time betting fav for Labour leader but this is all there was in common. No pugnacious theatre from him, simply a one-on-one interview in a tranquil square with local TV. Suit, tie, placid demeanour, and a low key conversational exchange, informing us – yawn – that he’d agreed a suitable funding package with the government. It was pure Halifax branch manager (from back when they had them).
So which one hits the spot? Which is the better template for Labour in opposition? I don’t know. You watch a Jarvis and you’re reassured somewhat but your pulse remains resolutely steady. Burnham gets it racing - but do floating voters want that from a Labour politician? As I say, I don’t know. I know what I prefer but that’s not the important metric.
https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1319196335925583872?s=21
Now, to be fair, this isn't an easy gig, but it should have been obvious by August that more targeted support would be needed.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1319172209403961346?s=20
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1319225316984971265?s=20
Include housing etc and that is a comparable amount to someone working 30 hours a week on minimum wage.
If you include the taper, NI and Income Tax it means that the poorest in society can effectively be earning less than one pound per hour if they do an extra hours work.