politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour is paying a price for its elongated leadership conte
Comments
-
True. And yet the examples Frank Field rolled out earlier, to much trumpeting, featured people or families working 16h/wk. Which I would tentatively suggest the GBP would not term "their best" (but perfectly understandable given the incentives involved).Danny565 said:Exactly. Tories are IMO misreading the general public's anti-benefits feeling as some ideological economic laissez-faire attitude. It's not really IMO - people make a moral argument that the unemployed are too lazy to help themselves (which I don't agree with either but there it is), but people are quite happy to pay taxes to help those less fortunate than themselves as long as they feel those people are doing their best.
0 -
Agreed. A lot of the media fueling the 'benefit entitlement culture' narrative have been about long-term unemployed people - from tabloid stories, to notably TV shows on C4 and C5. They have not been about low-paid people struggling to meet ends' meat.Danny565 said:Exactly. Tories are IMO misreading the general public's anti-benefits feeling as some ideological economic laissez-faire attitude. It's not really IMO - people make a moral argument that the unemployed are too lazy to help themselves (which I don't agree with either but there it is), but people are quite happy to pay taxes to help those less fortunate than themselves as long as they feel those people actually are putting the effort in by working and are doing their best.
0 -
Mr Eagles I would argue that the cost of liberating Europe was not 'minimal'. It was quite significant and the daily attrition rate of the NW Europe Campaign was not dissimilar to WW1. This despite total air superiority and a significant mechanised advantage over an enemy who effectively had no petrol. This does not make him, Monty, Bradley or Patton bad generals, they were good generals.0
-
The problem is the failure to engage with the idea that working 16 hours a week is 'enough' to qualify for benefits. It really isn't and most members of the general public can see this. The budget reforms, including the min wage increases can mitigate much of the loss in benefits if people take on more hours. I do not pretend this is easy but it is certainly possible. The assumptions about people being worse off are predicated on people not changing their behaviour. If so so be it.The_Apocalypse said:
BIB: Is it really? Some recent polling was done, and it suggests that the public do not think those on low pay get too much benefits. I think the Tories could well be misjudging the public mood on this. While a large disgruntlement regarding welfare comes from 'scroungers' - those who do not work, I've not seen anything to suggest such disgruntlement comes from those who are low paid receiving benefits.Mortimer said:
If people on low incomes are finding things tough on the still enormous largesse of the state, they ought to work more hours or spend less money. It sounds callous, and will never be said in public by a politician, but is echoed in the pubs, social clubs and front-rooms of working net tax-payers across the country.SouthamObserver said:
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.Richard_Nabavi said:Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
My mother was born on a council estate in North Wales in the 50s; she knew poverty, hunger, want of clothing. She cannot believe the claims made over poverty in modern Britain today; in short she finds them laughable.0 -
Indeed, I don't share those views. Feckless and underserving are both very negative and derogatory terms - I just don't see why the state should subsidise anybody of working age and capability to the extent it has been.SouthamObserver said:
Yes, I understand that there are some net taxpayers who believe the low paid are feckless and undeserving. I also know that there are others who do not share those views.Mortimer said:
If people on low incomes are finding things tough on the still enormous largesse of the state, they ought to work more hours or spend less money. It sounds callous, and will never be said in public by a politician, but is echoed in the pubs, social clubs and front-rooms of working net tax-payers across the country.SouthamObserver said:
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.Richard_Nabavi said:Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
My mother was born on a council estate in North Wales in the 50s; she knew poverty, hunger, want of clothing. She cannot believe the claims made over poverty in modern Britain today; in short she finds them laughable.
You don't have to be a callous chap or lady to dislike social welfare payments.
0 -
BIB: Is it really? Some recent polling was done, and it suggests that the public do not think those on low pay get too much benefits. I think the Tories could well be misjudging the public mood on this. While a large disgruntlement regarding welfare comes from 'scroungers' - those who do not work, I've not seen anything to suggest such disgruntlement comes from those who are low paid receiving benefits.
Exactly. Tories are IMO misreading the general public's anti-benefits feeling as some ideological economic laissez-faire attitude. It's not really IMO - people make a moral argument that the unemployed are too lazy to help themselves (which I don't agree with either but there it is), but people are quite happy to pay taxes to help those less fortunate than themselves as long as they feel those people actually are putting the effort in by working and are doing their best.
We agree! You don't think 16 hours a week is 'people putting the effort' in and 'doing their best' do you????????0 -
Maybe. If that is so, then the Tories will be fine. If it isn't, then we will have to see.philiph said:
Funny old world, I think it is good for the country, it should be good for those it effects in the long run (there will obviously be exceptions where someone suffers).SouthamObserver said:
I fear we cannot all offer the marvellously varied range of contributions - touching on so many different subjects - that you do. But, yes, I am bitter. I dislike Tory policy because I don't think it is good for the long-term well-being of the country and there is no-one on my side of the argument currently capable of presenting a measured, credible critique of the poor decisions that I believe are being made.felix said:
We also know what bitterness looks like - it pervades your repetitive commenting of the same meme like the none too ripe lemons from the garden opposite my house.SouthamObserver said:
So we should all know what hubris looks like. Some, it seems, have already forgotten. For all Osborne's fine words - and the exultation with which they were received - a series of choices was made last week that could well see many millions of working families become materially worse off, including a large number of those who rely on a self-employed breadwinner. We have yet to see how that will play out.Casino_Royale said:
No, that was our resident candidate Nick Palmer pre-election. I know he doesn't like us mentioning it now but day after day he'd post 'tick tock' and his impending 7% victory margin as the election approached.SouthamObserver said:
Peak hubris?TheScreamingEagles said:George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
I warned him it smacked of hubris at the time. It did, and it was.
I just fail to see the humanity, kindness or vision in the existing system that limits work to 16 hours, is designed to work for and achieve the lowest common denominator and level everyone down to that. The proposed system sets a higher common denominator and asks people to level up to it. By definition that will make a bigger gap where some are less poor, or even better off than they were, and others will remain static and may loose a bit. May be that is what they need at the bottom of the scale in order to motivate them to change.
0 -
Congratulations to the LibDems on electing a leader even more Sixth-Formery than Ed Miliband!felix said:
We'll have to disagree on your first point. didn't the LDs once promise not to raise tuition fees - what they say and what they did are not the same things. They also have chosen the wrong leader for garnering left-wing votes.logical_song said:
It's not unusual for politicians to be opportunist, that doesn't merit them being called 'thick'.felix said:PClipp said:
Carry on laughing, Mr Speedy! The public is gradually becoming aware of the fact that we had five years of stable government, which was slowly getting the public finances under control - and also of the very many policies that the Lib Dems were preventing the Tories from implementing.Speedy said:At least the LD will never get a single vote out of it, because only 2.5 months ago they were in government with the Tories and the notion that they are the real opposition is laughable.
Now that the Tories are at liberty to impose their will on the country, the Lib Dems have, rightly, resumed their position as open and public opponents of the more damaging Tory policies. Impossible to leave this to the Labour leaders, who don´t know whether they are coming or going.
I'm ever more convinced Mr Clipp is a computer generated LD.
She doesn't understand the notion of the role of HM Opposition rather more nuanced than her silly opportunist tweet. I'm sure that Greens will benefit - I doubt that LDs will despite their efforts to airbrush History. Attacking the govt on benefit cuts is not the right territory for UKIP.logical_song said:
Surely the SNP will only benefit in part of the United Kingdom. Might not others Greens, LibDems even UKIP benefit in England & Wales?felix said:
Lucas is really pretty thick. I suspect the main beneficiaries of Labour's mess will be the SNP - despite the tweet above the left vote will not be rushing back to Farron's Christian/Liberal Democrats.Scott_P said:@CarolineLucas: Unbelievable - @uklabour announces they'll abstain *again* - this time on Govt's terrible Finance Bill. Official Opposition? - clue in name
In what way is what Lucas said "thick"?
It's hardly 'airbrushing history' to oppose the same cuts in opposition that you prevented in Government.
I would not be surprised if all opposition parties, excluding Labour of course, benefited from a rudderless Labour party.0 -
As said before if the GBP agree with this narrative, then they would not have the opinion that those on low paid do not get too much benefits. The minimum wage increase to £9 per hour, may not come in until 2020 - by which the budget changes would be well under way. Some appear to think only a small minority of people are going to be affected by the budget changes - 13m families is an awful lot of people to upset.felix said:The problem is the failure to engage with the idea that working 16 hours a week is 'enough' to qualify for benefits. It really isn't and most members of the general public can see this. The budget reforms, including the min wage increases can mitigate much of the loss in benefits if people take on more hours. I do not pretend this is easy but it is certainly possible. The assumptions about people being worse off are predicated on people not changing their behaviour. If so so be it.
I get the feeling from some Tories that they want people to live to work, as opposed to working to live.0 -
If they can make it through to 68 then they'll be set free by the triple lock.The_Apocalypse said:
As said before if the GBP agree with this narrative, then they would not have the opinion that those on low paid do not get too much benefits. The minimum wage increase to £9 per hour, may not come in until 2020 - by which the budget changes would be well under way. Some appear to think only a small minority of people are going to be affected by the budget changes - 13m families is an awful lot of people to upset.felix said:The problem is the failure to engage with the idea that working 16 hours a week is 'enough' to qualify for benefits. It really isn't and most members of the general public can see this. The budget reforms, including the min wage increases can mitigate much of the loss in benefits if people take on more hours. I do not pretend this is easy but it is certainly possible. The assumptions about people being worse off are predicated on people not changing their behaviour. If so so be it.
I get the feeling from some Tories, they want people to live to work, as opposed to working to live.0 -
But IDS at least had the distinction of never losing a GE as Tory leader!TheScreamingEagles said:
Look, I had to endure the leadership of IDS for two years, I'm just enjoying the fun whilst it lasts.logical_song said:
Calm down, dear.TheScreamingEagles said:George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Labour can't go on being this useless forever, nor can the Tories remain this awesome, surely?0 -
People are quite entitled to work fewer hours to have more leisure time. They just should not expect other people to pay for them to do that.The_Apocalypse said:
As said before if the GBP agree with this narrative, then they would not have the opinion that those on low paid do not get too much benefits. The minimum wage increase to £9 per hour, may not come in until 2020 - by which the budget changes would be well under way. Some appear to think only a small minority of people are going to be affected by the budget changes - 13m families is an awful lot of people to upset.felix said:The problem is the failure to engage with the idea that working 16 hours a week is 'enough' to qualify for benefits. It really isn't and most members of the general public can see this. The budget reforms, including the min wage increases can mitigate much of the loss in benefits if people take on more hours. I do not pretend this is easy but it is certainly possible. The assumptions about people being worse off are predicated on people not changing their behaviour. If so so be it.
I get the feeling from some Tories that they want people to live to work, as opposed to working to live.0 -
You don't have to be a callous chap or lady to dislike social welfare payments.
Labour's point is that the welfare cuts are on 'top up' credits being given to low paid people such as cleaners, many of whom work hard and at unsociable hours.
These people are not feckless or lazy. Quite the opposite. I have seen them waiting for buses into the City's giant offices at 5am in the p8ssing rain in January.0 -
Burnham is getting torn to shreds here:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=850955788332802&id=809004655861249&refid=17&_ft_=top_level_post_id.850955788332802
I know it is only Facebook... But still0 -
Labour's issue isn't lack of leadership last night, it's lack of leadership from 2010 .
What do they stand for ?
The pointless party.0 -
FPT
Good point well made.JEO said:
I don't agree. The dark side of Mercury is a lot colder than the dark side of Venus, despite Venus being further away. That shows the greenhouse effect can be a lot larger than the amount of heat energy reaching the planet.Luckyguy1983 said:
In terms of each increasing or decreasing by a percentage of itself, I'm happy to accept what you say. However, in real terms, we are comparing horses and ants in terms of their contribution. The notion that any form of 'greenhouse effect' could even begin to equal the impact of the very energy source that the effect depends on is surely self-evidently risible, would you not agree?JEO said:
That logic doesn't follow, for two reasons:Luckyguy1983 said:
Interesting. Would you not agree that given the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on the contention that Co2 and other gases retain a little more of the sun's energy than would otherwise be the case, that the behaviour of the sun itself is by definition a far bigger factor in the rising and falling of the earth's temperatures?
1) The retainability could be a lot more variable than the Sun's activity. For example, if the Sun's activity varies by 10%, while the retainability of the energy could vary from 30% to 60%.
2) The greenhouse effect model also retains the cumulative energy built up in the atmosphere, not just the extra added to it from the Sun that year.0 -
Having to regularly wait for buses/trains at 5am in the morning, all year round, I fail to see in your argument why that is a qualifier for social welfare payments to be given...taffys said:You don't have to be a callous chap or lady to dislike social welfare payments.
Labour's point is that the welfare cuts are on 'top up' credits being given to low paid people such as cleaners, many of whom work hard and at unsociable hours.
These people are not feckless or lazy. Quite the opposite. I have seen them waiting for buses into the City's giant offices at 5am in the p8ssing rain in January.
We need to get away from calling these welfare payments credits; they are not, and were only classified as such to distort GB's welfare spending figures in the early noughties.
0 -
What are you saying? Facebook won it for Yes !!reverend_cat said:I know it is only Facebook... But still
Oh, wait...0 -
SouthamObserver said:
Maybe. If that is so, then the Tories will be fine. If it isn't, then we will have to see.philiph said:
Funny old world, I think it is good for the country, it should be good for those it effects in the long run (there will obviously be exceptions where someone suffers).SouthamObserver said:
I fear we cannot all offer the marvellously varied range of contributions - touching on so many different subjects - that you do. But, yes, I am bitter. I dislike Tory policy because I don't think it is good for the long-term well-being of the country and there is no-one on my side of the argument currently capable of presenting a measured, credible critique of the poor decisions that I believe are being made.felix said:
We also know what bitterness looks like - it pervades your repetitive commenting of the same meme like the none too ripe lemons from the garden opposite my house.SouthamObserver said:
So we should all know what hubris looks like. Some, it seems, have already forgotten. For all Osborne's fine words - and the exultation with which they were received - a series of choices was made last week that could well see many millions of working families become materially worse off, including a large number of those who rely on a self-employed breadwinner. We have yet to see how that will play out.Casino_Royale said:SouthamObserver said:TheScreamingEagles said:
I just fail to see the humanity, kindness or vision in the existing system that limits work to 16 hours, is designed to work for and achieve the lowest common denominator and level everyone down to that. The proposed system sets a higher common denominator and asks people to level up to it. By definition that will make a bigger gap where some are less poor, or even better off than they were, and others will remain static and may loose a bit. May be that is what they need at the bottom of the scale in order to motivate them to change.
What I find hard to understand is that there are so many who seem to think the status quo is acceptable, is untouchable or with a little more generosity would be great.
Clearly it isn't.
There are thousands in poverty, thousands relying on the state and thousands of children undernourished.
The current system is an expensive abject failure and a change of direction is overdue.0 -
true.TheScreamingEagles said:
No, I'm just enjoying the moment, I'm fearful the Tory party will tear itself over the EU referendum within the next 18 months or so.SouthamObserver said:
Peak hubris?TheScreamingEagles said:George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
So you got to enjoy the fun whilst it lasts.
0 -
Some how, I don't think that those people want to work 16hrs - I'm sure they'd like to work. In which case, a sensible compromise would have to to raise the amount of hours the low paid needed to work to qualify for those benefits. The IFS, estimates that even with the living wage, and all the other budget reforms, workers will still not make up the shortfall caused by budget cuts.JEO said:
People are quite entitled to work fewer hours to have more leisure time. They just should not expect other people to pay for them to do that.The_Apocalypse said:
As said before if the GBP agree with this narrative, then they would not have the opinion that those on low paid do not get too much benefits. The minimum wage increase to £9 per hour, may not come in until 2020 - by which the budget changes would be well under way. Some appear to think only a small minority of people are going to be affected by the budget changes - 13m families is an awful lot of people to upset.felix said:The problem is the failure to engage with the idea that working 16 hours a week is 'enough' to qualify for benefits. It really isn't and most members of the general public can see this. The budget reforms, including the min wage increases can mitigate much of the loss in benefits if people take on more hours. I do not pretend this is easy but it is certainly possible. The assumptions about people being worse off are predicated on people not changing their behaviour. If so so be it.
I get the feeling from some Tories that they want people to live to work, as opposed to working to live.
But your comment does confirm my original thoughts. Conservatives want not just the low paid, but everyone in general to live to work. Which ironically, doesn't do much for Tory ideas regarding the family, and the strengthening of it.0 -
Obviously so: our levels of wealth comes, among other things, from a series of economic decisions we make: how hard we worked in school, where we chose to study, which jobs we decide to take, how many hours to push for. But that does not mean people currently working 16 hours a week "feckless and undeserving". It just means that if those people want to have more spare money than they currently have, they will either need to use more of their leisure time to work, or they will need to be more prudent with their current spending. These are basic causal relationships.SouthamObserver said:
I read his first sentence: "If people on low incomes are finding things tough on the still enormous largesse of the state, they ought to work more hours or spend less money". They are poor because of the choices they make.
It seems to be a strange Labour position where the message of "these economic decisions could improve your economic position" is interpreted as "you're lacking in moral character". Should we treat everyone in the country as if they are incapable of making their own decisions? That seems like infantilising them.0 -
Lib Dems have made themselves the party that is for more immigrants and more welfare. How that will win back seats is a puzzle. But they may get away with it because the voters may not notice.0
-
You've seen some of them, but quite why a modestly-paid worker in, say, Milton Keynes should be subsidising through her taxes the cleaning bill of City offices is a bit unclear, is it not?taffys said:These people are not feckless or lazy. Quite the opposite. I have seen them waiting for buses into the City's giant offices at 5am in the p8ssing rain in January.
More generally, very few are feckless or lazy; mostly they are reacting quite rationally (at least in the short term) to the perverse incentives which Gordon Brown built into our welfare system. As a result too many become demoralised and unemployable through welfare dependency, with all the concomitant damage to their self-esteem, well-being, and mental and physical health. It's a vicious circle which Conservatives want to correct, but Labour seems to want to perpetuate.0 -
Yeah, withdrawing benefits will solve poverty. Somehow, I don't see that happening.philiph said:
What I find hard to understand is that there are so many who seem to think the status quo is acceptable, is untouchable or with a little more generosity would be great.
Clearly it isn't.
There are thousands in poverty, thousands relying on the state and thousands of children undernourished.
The current system is an expensive abject failure and a change of direction is overdue.0 -
A Tony Blair would have swatted away the Tories line on the SNP by stating he was only interested in winning a majority. At the end of the day beating the Tories in England is going to return both Labour and LibDems to their former glory - their continued attacks on the SNP are wasted bullets as for now the SNP appear to be bulletproof.Scott_P said:
The SNP are the reason labour did so badly in Englandcalum said:I know both parties still blame the SNP as opposed to the Tories for their misfortune
Pairing is the reason the SNP wild claims about the vote are bollocks. Seems reasonable to say so.calum said:In a similar vein I think the political commentators also need to stop focusing on the SNP - eg. Iain Martin did a piece earlier peddling the line that the SNP are misleading folks around the mechanics of Westminster voting and wittering on about the "pairing" system, which for what its worth is completely irrelevant to last nights vote
In terms of "pairing", of the 20 or so Tories who didn't vote - how many were paired? Anyway I thought that pairing wasn't allowed on significant votes like this:
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/pairing/0 -
''Having to regularly wait for buses/trains at 5am in the morning, all year round, I fail to see in your argument why that is a qualifier for social welfare payments to be given...''
If you want to argue that the low paid should not be subsidised by other taxpayers, or subsidised less, that is fine.
I'm not sure that was the conservative rhetoric at the election, however. That was all about making work pay.0 -
I know, I know.Scott_P said:
What are you saying? Facebook won it for Yes !!reverend_cat said:I know it is only Facebook... But still
Oh, wait...
I am not saying it has handed anyone a victory, but if is clear from both Yvette and Burnham's Facebook pages that some core supporters are now switching.
The volume of people? Anyone's guess.
0 -
Talking of Tony Blair, read this, oh ye Labour supporters, and weep:
http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=201
That's what a good opposition leader is like. Andy B isn't quite in the same league, is he?0 -
"they want people to live to work, as opposed to working to live."
What sort of juvenile nonsense is that? It is a fine thing for someone to make a decision to limit the extent that they work in order to spend more time with their children or more time with their hobbies or for any other reason. When I was working I made a conscious decision not to pursue promotion, and thus higher salaries and a bigger pension, and my wife made the decision to give up work when our son was born. What we did not do was expect the taxpayer to rally round and give us their money to make up our income. We took decisions that had consequences in terms of standards of living and accepted those consequences. I see no reason why others in full health cannot do the same.
0 -
There are not many people only working 16 hours a week, but I bet most of them are happy to only work for that much. They may be students wanting to top up their beer money. They may be the main caregiver in a household, relying on another person's income. They may have large amounts of savings but like to do a few hours in the local charity shop. They may be over 65 but not ready to fully retire. A few of them may even be happy with a low level of salary and feel the income topped up by benefits is enough for them, as they prefer their leisure time.The_Apocalypse said:
Some how, I don't think that those people want to work 16hrs - I'm sure they'd like to work. In which case, a sensible compromise would have to to raise the amount of hours the low paid needed to work to qualify for those benefits. The IFS, estimates that even with the living wage, and all the other budget reforms, workers will still not make up the shortfall caused by budget cuts.JEO said:
People are quite entitled to work fewer hours to have more leisure time. They just should not expect other people to pay for them to do that.The_Apocalypse said:
As said before if the GBP agree with this narrative, then they would not have the opinion that those on low paid do not get too much benefits. The minimum wage increase to £9 per hour, may not come in until 2020 - by which the budget changes would be well under way. Some appear to think only a small minority of people are going to be affected by the budget changes - 13m families is an awful lot of people to upset.felix said:The problem is the failure to engage with the idea that working 16 hours a week is 'enough' to qualify for benefits. It really isn't and most members of the general public can see this. The budget reforms, including the min wage increases can mitigate much of the loss in benefits if people take on more hours. I do not pretend this is easy but it is certainly possible. The assumptions about people being worse off are predicated on people not changing their behaviour. If so so be it.
I get the feeling from some Tories that they want people to live to work, as opposed to working to live.
But your comment does confirm my original thoughts. Conservatives want not just the low paid, but everyone in general to live to work. Which ironically, doesn't do much for Tory ideas regarding the family, and the strengthening of it.
Also, it is not expecting people to "live to work" to do the normal 40 hours a week, which gives plenty of time for the family.0 -
If you wear blinkers you will not see the world. If you do not believe in people they will likely disappoint you. If you give people hope they may flourish.The_Apocalypse said:
Yeah, withdrawing benefits will solve poverty. Somehow, I don't see that happening.philiph said:
What I find hard to understand is that there are so many who seem to think the status quo is acceptable, is untouchable or with a little more generosity would be great.
Clearly it isn't.
There are thousands in poverty, thousands relying on the state and thousands of children undernourished.
The current system is an expensive abject failure and a change of direction is overdue.
If you tell them they have no hope, many will stay poor and desolate.
I don't think 'benefits' is the sole answer.0 -
Social Media - or Socialist Media?reverend_cat said:
I know, I know.Scott_P said:
What are you saying? Facebook won it for Yes !!reverend_cat said:I know it is only Facebook... But still
Oh, wait...
I am not saying it has handed anyone a victory, but if is clear from both Yvette and Burnham's Facebook pages that some core supporters are now switching.
The volume of people? Anyone's guess.
0 -
@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.0 -
TSE I thought that the Overlord operation was planned by a British general, Lieutenant-General Frederick E. Morgan and his staff at COSSAC, and only tweaked in terms of scale by Eisenhower and Montgomery.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've had a very liquid lunch*HurstLlama said:
Eisenhower a great strategist? Are you back on the sauce, Mr. Eagles? Eisenhower had a great many good qualities that enabled him to to perform extremely well as Supreme Allied Commander, probably better than any other septic could have, but a strategist he wasn't never mind a great strategist.TheScreamingEagles said:George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Eisenhower liberated mainland Europe at minimal cost. He did great work in Africa too.
Plus, I reckon, his sending of the 101st Airborne to escort the Little Rock Nine, did a lot for American race relations, made fans of Jim Crow look like numpties.
*nothing stronger than mango juice and pineapple juice.0 -
I don't think benefits are the sole answer either.philiph said:
If you wear blinkers you will not see the world. If you do not believe in people they will likely disappoint you. If you give people hope they may flourish.The_Apocalypse said:
Yeah, withdrawing benefits will solve poverty. Somehow, I don't see that happening.philiph said:
What I find hard to understand is that there are so many who seem to think the status quo is acceptable, is untouchable or with a little more generosity would be great.
Clearly it isn't.
There are thousands in poverty, thousands relying on the state and thousands of children undernourished.
The current system is an expensive abject failure and a change of direction is overdue.
If you tell them they have no hope, many will stay poor and desolate.
I don't think 'benefits' is the sole answer.0 -
If you think the squealing over this round of cuts is bad, hold tight...
@TimesNewsdesk: Osborne to cut another £20bn from spending bill in new wave of reforms
http://t.co/QnkrxE2AT70 -
''You've seen some of them, but quite why a modestly-paid worker in, say, Milton Keynes should be subsidising through her taxes the cleaning bill of City offices is a bit unclear, is it not?''
True I suppose, but it remains to be seen whether the private sector will be able to take up the tax credit slack, even when compelled to by law.
I think low paid workers are, in many cases, bloody amazing. It's difficult to praise them without sounding patronising.0 -
Very well said.Richard_Nabavi said:
More generally, very few are feckless or lazy; mostly they are reacting quite rationally (at least in the short term) to the perverse incentives which Gordon Brown built into our welfare system. As a result too many become demoralised and unemployable through welfare dependency, with all the concomitant damage to their self-esteem, well-being, and mental and physical health. It's a vicious circle which Conservatives want to correct, but Labour seems to want to perpetuate.taffys said:These people are not feckless or lazy. Quite the opposite. I have seen them waiting for buses into the City's giant offices at 5am in the p8ssing rain in January.
0 -
New Labour, new Britain, the party renewed, the country reborn. New Labour. New Britain. (Prolonged applause)Richard_Nabavi said:Talking of Tony Blair, read this, oh ye Labour supporters, and weep:
http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=201
That's what a good opposition leader is like. Andy B isn't quite in the same league, is he?
Can't believe it's been twenty years!0 -
Scott_P said:
If you think the squealing over this round of cuts is bad, hold tight...
@TimesNewsdesk: Osborne to cut another £20bn from spending bill in new wave of reforms
http://t.co/QnkrxE2AT7
Squeeze them till the pips squeak?
0 -
Bairstow in for Balance...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/33612502
Hmm...so more Bell and Lyth, and we still don't have enough variation in the bowling department.0 -
Except that they didn´t. All the Tories could manage was the support of 24% of the registered voters.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option of appointing 500 new peers if the Lords want to pervert the will of the voters. The voters elected a Tory government with a majority remember that you ermine clad unelected people.
0 -
"If Labour had the courage to oppose the Welfare Bill, together we could have defeated the Tories."logical_song said:
Link?TGOHF said:Looks like the LDs are using Nat maths - oil price at $120 a barrel in the next manifesto.
Dishonest party gets whacked at the polls and fails to learn lesson - oh well.
An utter untruth.
The Fibdems are back under Farron.0 -
Labour were elected in 2005 with an even smaller percentage.PClipp said:
Except that they didn´t. All the Tories could manage was the support of 24% of the registered voters.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option of appointing 500 new peers if the Lords want to pervert the will of the voters. The voters elected a Tory government with a majority remember that you ermine clad unelected people.
0 -
Agreed. A lot of PB Tories react in a negative way to the accusation that the Tories don't care about the poor, but comments' on here today, hardly contradict that view. I'm beginning to think that some believe only middle class Tories, and rich 'wealth creators' contribute anything to this country.taffys said:''You've seen some of them, but quite why a modestly-paid worker in, say, Milton Keynes should be subsidising through her taxes the cleaning bill of City offices is a bit unclear, is it not?''
True I suppose, but it remains to be seen whether the private sector will be able to take up the tax credit slack, even when compelled to by law.
I think low paid workers are, in many cases, bloody amazing. It's difficult to praise them without sounding patronising.
0 -
Hi all, on yet another dodgy internet connection in Spain this time. Anyone who complains about our infrastructure doesn't spend much time in the Med. Unlike some of our more dramatic contributors I am delighted to say that our hotel has so far not been attacked by terrorists. In fact it is all very peaceful if a little hot.
The key to Osborne's reforms is that working the minimum number of hours to qualify for inwork benefits is not "working" at all. It was however a completely rational thing to do when your wages were then made up to full time wages. Even worse the marginal rate of tax/benefit withdrawal was horrendous, frequently approaching 100% so there were positive disincentives to work any longer. This is what he wants to change. Not only must work pay but more work must pay better. It is not possible to achieve this without removing some of the largesse received by part time workers even with a higher earned wage.
So it is a sensible reform and the Lib Dems are wrong to oppose it. I fear under Farron they are going to be a lot less attractive to wet Tories like me.0 -
But that's OK because they are not the evil Tories, you seeAndyJS said:
Labour were elected in 2005 with an even smaller percentage.PClipp said:
Except that they didn´t. All the Tories could manage was the support of 24% of the registered voters.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option of appointing 500 new peers if the Lords want to pervert the will of the voters. The voters elected a Tory government with a majority remember that you ermine clad unelected people.
0 -
Farron = Yellow Ed Miliband.TGOHF said:
"If Labour had the courage to oppose the Welfare Bill, together we could have defeated the Tories."logical_song said:
Link?TGOHF said:Looks like the LDs are using Nat maths - oil price at $120 a barrel in the next manifesto.
Dishonest party gets whacked at the polls and fails to learn lesson - oh well.
An utter untruth.
The Fibdems are back under Farron.0 -
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.0 -
In a yellow snow kind of way.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Farron = Yellow Ed Miliband.TGOHF said:
"If Labour had the courage to oppose the Welfare Bill, together we could have defeated the Tories."logical_song said:
Link?TGOHF said:Looks like the LDs are using Nat maths - oil price at $120 a barrel in the next manifesto.
Dishonest party gets whacked at the polls and fails to learn lesson - oh well.
An utter untruth.
The Fibdems are back under Farron.0 -
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.0 -
If they were unemployable they would not be working. These changes affect people in work - and not just those working sixteen hours a week.Richard_Nabavi said:
You've seen some of them, but quite why a modestly-paid worker in, say, Milton Keynes should be subsidising through her taxes the cleaning bill of City offices is a bit unclear, is it not?taffys said:These people are not feckless or lazy. Quite the opposite. I have seen them waiting for buses into the City's giant offices at 5am in the p8ssing rain in January.
More generally, very few are feckless or lazy; mostly they are reacting quite rationally (at least in the short term) to the perverse incentives which Gordon Brown built into our welfare system. As a result too many become demoralised and unemployable through welfare dependency, with all the concomitant damage to their self-esteem, well-being, and mental and physical health. It's a vicious circle which Conservatives want to correct, but Labour seems to want to perpetuate.
Still, the Chancellor has promised them a pay rise and a living wage, so it should all be fine.
0 -
The numbers look pretty straightforward.TGOHF said:
"If Labour had the courage to oppose the Welfare Bill, together we could have defeated the Tories."logical_song said:
Link?TGOHF said:Looks like the LDs are using Nat maths - oil price at $120 a barrel in the next manifesto.
Dishonest party gets whacked at the polls and fails to learn lesson - oh well.
An utter untruth.
The Fibdems are back under Farron.
If you're saying that things would have been different if... then that's another matter.
"What happened happened,
What didn't happen didn't happen
What didn't happen couldn't happen
Because what happened happened"0 -
And that was ridiculous too.AndyJS said:
Labour were elected in 2005 with an even smaller percentage.PClipp said:
Except that they didn´t. All the Tories could manage was the support of 24% of the registered voters.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option of appointing 500 new peers if the Lords want to pervert the will of the voters. The voters elected a Tory government with a majority remember that you ermine clad unelected people.
0 -
What the Tories said in May is no concern of mine, what a person does for a living and their level of income is mostly a factor of decisions they have made on top of the decisions their parents have made. Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, comes, from what he has posted on here, from a very modest background and now, also from what he has posted on here, earns a very substantial income. What decisions lay behind that change of circumstance? I dunno, ask him and those like him. I doubt the answer will be income support.The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.0 -
It wasn't "minimal cost" to those who stormed Omaha Beach, or who tried to clear the Scheldt Estuary in Belgium, or those who ventured into the Hurtgen Forest.MTimT said:
TSE I thought that the Overlord operation was planned by a British general, Lieutenant-General Frederick E. Morgan and his staff at COSSAC, and only tweaked in terms of scale by Eisenhower and Montgomery.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've had a very liquid lunch*HurstLlama said:
Eisenhower a great strategist? Are you back on the sauce, Mr. Eagles? Eisenhower had a great many good qualities that enabled him to to perform extremely well as Supreme Allied Commander, probably better than any other septic could have, but a strategist he wasn't never mind a great strategist.TheScreamingEagles said:George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Eisenhower liberated mainland Europe at minimal cost. He did great work in Africa too.
Plus, I reckon, his sending of the 101st Airborne to escort the Little Rock Nine, did a lot for American race relations, made fans of Jim Crow look like numpties.
*nothing stronger than mango juice and pineapple juice.0 -
So, throwing your tactics back at you...The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.
Your opinion is that "if people are poor it is NEVER their fault".
0 -
Tbh it's ridiculous in general that we can elect governments on such small percentages. It hardly produces an efficient political system either; divisive figures, rather than consensus builders are produced, who implement short-term, political decisions instead of polices with the long-term future of the country in mind. And we wonder why there are so many problems in this country.
0 -
Tell me what percentage of registered voters did the Lib Dems receive ?PClipp said:
Except that they didn´t. All the Tories could manage was the support of 24% of the registered voters.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave has the nuclear option of appointing 500 new peers if the Lords want to pervert the will of the voters. The voters elected a Tory government with a majority remember that you ermine clad unelected people.
Was it more than the number of non white or female Lib Dem MPs?0 -
I remember similar points about 3 million unemployed at the start of the last govt. Labour need to change the record.taffys said:''You've seen some of them, but quite why a modestly-paid worker in, say, Milton Keynes should be subsidising through her taxes the cleaning bill of City offices is a bit unclear, is it not?''
True I suppose, but it remains to be seen whether the private sector will be able to take up the tax credit slack, even when compelled to by law.
I think low paid workers are, in many cases, bloody amazing. It's difficult to praise them without sounding patronising.0 -
No. What he said was that people who decide to work fewer hours will be poorer than they otherwise would be.The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.0 -
It may make you feel better to deploy the 'baby-eater' meme but it hardly moves the debate forward.The_Apocalypse said:
Agreed. A lot of PB Tories react in a negative way to the accusation that the Tories don't care about the poor, but comments' on here today, hardly contradict that view. I'm beginning to think that some believe only middle class Tories, and rich 'wealth creators' contribute anything to this country.taffys said:''You've seen some of them, but quite why a modestly-paid worker in, say, Milton Keynes should be subsidising through her taxes the cleaning bill of City offices is a bit unclear, is it not?''
True I suppose, but it remains to be seen whether the private sector will be able to take up the tax credit slack, even when compelled to by law.
I think low paid workers are, in many cases, bloody amazing. It's difficult to praise them without sounding patronising.0 -
Not necessarily. But in any case, I'm drawn to an approach which can help people out of their situation. Ultimately, who is to blame for someone being poor doesn't change the situation, nor the social costs caused by poverty.Disraeli said:
So, throwing your tactics back at you...The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.
Your opinion is that "if people are poor it is NEVER their fault".0 -
FPTP actually encourages consensus builders and "big tent" parties. Cameron is an excellent example. Whereas PR encourages narrower parties appealing to smaller segments of the electorate, with coalitions arranged either pre- or post-election.The_Apocalypse said:Tbh it's ridiculous in general that we can elect governments on such small percentages. It hardly produces an efficient political system either; divisive figures, rather than consensus builders are produced, who implement short-term, political decisions instead of polices with the long-term future of the country in mind. And we wonder why there are so many problems in this country.
But FPTP also depresses the vote share of the main parties as there will always be some NOTA voters (just witness the drift from LD to UKIP, inexplicable in policy terms).0 -
A lot of luck and being in the right place at the right time, combined with a lot of hard work and parents who were determined I would get what they did not get. Thanks to the welfare state I did. Crucially, when I was unemployed I got what I needed to keep me going until I found the job that put me on the trail to where I am now.HurstLlama said:
What the Tories said in May is no concern of mine, what a person does for a living and their level of income is mostly a factor of decisions they have made on top of the decisions their parents have made. Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, comes, from what he has posted on here, from a very modest background and now, also from what he has posted on here, earns a very substantial income. What decisions lay behind that change of circumstance? I dunno, ask him and those like him. I doubt the answer will be income support.The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.0 -
And the approach to help someone out of a welfare trap is to change their incentives.The_Apocalypse said:
Not necessarily. But in any case, I'm drawn to an approach which can help people out of their situation. Ultimately, who is to blame for someone being poor doesn't change the situation, nor the social costs caused by poverty.Disraeli said:
So, throwing your tactics back at you...The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.
Your opinion is that "if people are poor it is NEVER their fault".0 -
He is trying to stuff ever more words in people's mouths. Apparently, if you think people on benefits should be encouraged to work full time rather than less than part time, you believe people should "live to work" and think the poor are feckless.felix said:
It may make you feel better to deploy the 'baby-eater' meme but it hardly moves the debate forward.The_Apocalypse said:
Agreed. A lot of PB Tories react in a negative way to the accusation that the Tories don't care about the poor, but comments' on here today, hardly contradict that view. I'm beginning to think that some believe only middle class Tories, and rich 'wealth creators' contribute anything to this country.taffys said:''You've seen some of them, but quite why a modestly-paid worker in, say, Milton Keynes should be subsidising through her taxes the cleaning bill of City offices is a bit unclear, is it not?''
True I suppose, but it remains to be seen whether the private sector will be able to take up the tax credit slack, even when compelled to by law.
I think low paid workers are, in many cases, bloody amazing. It's difficult to praise them without sounding patronising.
This line of thinking may work in internal Labour discussions, but the general public can see through it very clearly. It's one of the reasons why Labour lost the election.0 -
I don't claim to be anything of an expert on this but I believe the argument that we are due a recession stems from a combination of Euro woes and, more importantly, Chinese woes. Kind of China sneezes and the world catches bird flu.GIN1138 said:
We're "due" a recession? Really? We've only just come out of the last one...TheScreamingEagles said:Plus, we're due a recession soon, 'cause believe it or not, Gordon Brown didn't abolish boom and bust.
Then the Tory mantra of the long term economic plan won't look so attractive to the voters.
I'd say we're due a "boom" much more than a recession!0 -
So you believe that if people are poor it's all their fault. A very Victorian view, if I may so. You must regret not only the existence of a welfare state, but also the NHS, state-funded education and so on. After all, self-reliant folk should be able to buy their own health insurance, and their own child's education, surely not?HurstLlama said:
What the Tories said in May is no concern of mine, what a person does for a living and their level of income is mostly a factor of decisions they have made on top of the decisions their parents have made. Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, comes, from what he has posted on here, from a very modest background and now, also from what he has posted on here, earns a very substantial income. What decisions lay behind that change of circumstance? I dunno, ask him and those like him. I doubt the answer will be income support.The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.0 -
In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates0 -
A typical comment on my timeline today:
Tony Barrett @TonyBarretTimes 7h7 hours ago
I have no idea what the Labour Party is doing or what it's supposed to stand for anymore. What a horrible mess.0 -
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
0 -
That's true only if you believe most people choose to access benefits when they could be working full-time for a living wage.Tissue_Price said:
And the approach to help someone out of a welfare trap is to change their incentives.The_Apocalypse said:
Not necessarily. But in any case, I'm drawn to an approach which can help people out of their situation. Ultimately, who is to blame for someone being poor doesn't change the situation, nor the social costs caused by poverty.Disraeli said:
So, throwing your tactics back at you...The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.
Your opinion is that "if people are poor it is NEVER their fault".
0 -
Read Mr.Observer's post below.The_Apocalypse said:
So you believe that if people are poor it's all their fault. A very Victorian view, if I may so. You must regret not only the existence of a welfare state, but also the NHS, state-funded education and so on. After all, self-reliant folk should be able to buy their own health insurance, and their own child's education, surely not?HurstLlama said:
What the Tories said in May is no concern of mine, what a person does for a living and their level of income is mostly a factor of decisions they have made on top of the decisions their parents have made. Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, comes, from what he has posted on here, from a very modest background and now, also from what he has posted on here, earns a very substantial income. What decisions lay behind that change of circumstance? I dunno, ask him and those like him. I doubt the answer will be income support.The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.0 -
I look forward to the BBC reporting this story, as they had a prior study from the pro-immigration Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration on the front page of their website and reported in all the main news bulletins:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11751188/Immigrants-more-likely-to-claim-benefits-be-jobless-or-on-low-wage-report.html0 -
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates0 -
That's a different point. I was referring to the long-term unemployed. The left, as you know, as part of their standard demonisation of Conservatives, like to smear us as regarding the long-term unemployed as feckless and lazy. It's garbage, of course - a Guardian invention.SouthamObserver said:If they were unemployable they would not be working. These changes affect people in work - and not just those working sixteen hours a week.
Still, the Chancellor has promised them a pay rise and a living wage, so it should all be fine.
On the in-work benefits question, we had the utterly ludicrous position where nine out of ten families were receiving benefits in Gordon Brown's merry-go-round. (Remember that under Labour even someone earning £10K a year was paying income tax). Nearly everyone (apart from Jeremy Corbyn) agrees that the welfare bill is too high. The savings have to come from somewhere, so what do you want to cut? It seems utterly bizarre that people who are actually in work should receive state subsidies on such a massive scale as Brown bequeathed. So, what Osborne has done is made the very sensible decision that in-work benefits should be eased back. Hopefully they'll eventually disappear altogether, returning the welfare state to its actual purpose of helping those who can't help themselves. Yes, in the short term some very deserving lower-paid people will lose out, which is why Osborne has mitigated the effect of the savings by increasing the minimum wage (the rebrand to a 'living wage' is pure politics, of course, but a rather neat example of countering the left's obsession with labels).
The bottom line is that, if you're going to save money from the welfare budget, there's going to be less welfare paid out. Unless you are going to argue that the only change to the welfare budget which can ever be made is to increase it, i.e. that there is no such thing as too much welfare as a proportion of GDP, then someone is going to get less.
An alternative, which if we had a coherent party of the left might be argued for, is a massive increase in taxes for the modestly paid to cover the difference. Personally I don't think that would be economically or morally justified, but at least it would be a coherent position.
What is not coherent is Labour saying simultaneously that they wouldn't increase taxes, would reduce the deficit, and would maintain most of the welfare overspend.0 -
Glenn Kitson @Glenn_Kitson 17h17 hours ago
48 Labour MPs who voted against #WelfareBill - the rest are a fucking disgrace.0 -
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.TheScreamingEagles said:
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates0 -
So how did Cam's vote go up from 56 MPs to 90 MPs between rounds.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.TheScreamingEagles said:
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
Cause Ken Clarke had been eliminated in an earlier round.0 -
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.TheScreamingEagles said:
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates0 -
@felix It was observation.
@JEO It's a 'she', not a 'he'. I don't know why people think I come off as bloke! Anyway, read @HurtsLlama's previous post. It's clear he/she does see poverty as something self-inflicted. Furthermore, I do not disagree with encouraging people to work full-time (that's you putting words into people's mouths). Nor were my 'live to work comments' as a result of your tax credit stance - I clarified in my post, it was a conclusion made as a result of a *general* attitude I've seen from Conservatives. So again, that's you putting words in my mouth. As for the general public, again more recent polling has shown the public do not believe the low paid get too much in benefits.
@Tissue_Price You can change incentives in a different way, by raising the hours workers need to work to qualify for tax credits. Second of all, I'd hardly call Cameron a consensus builder - he's not Angela Merkel FGS. It's the head of one of the most ideological governments in modern political history. PR reflects, rather than encourages small-party politics. Small party-politics is happening even under FPTP.0 -
It is really more a factor of it being 7years since the last recession ended. Most economic cycles are about 9 years long. If this one is we are in very serious trouble. Hopefully the depth of the last recession and the modest recovery from it might mean that the cycle lasts longer but we can't really count on it. The issues you mention suggest such optimism might be misplaced.Richard_Tyndall said:
I don't claim to be anything of an expert on this but I believe the argument that we are due a recession stems from a combination of Euro woes and, more importantly, Chinese woes. Kind of China sneezes and the world catches bird flu.GIN1138 said:
We're "due" a recession? Really? We've only just come out of the last one...TheScreamingEagles said:Plus, we're due a recession soon, 'cause believe it or not, Gordon Brown didn't abolish boom and bust.
Then the Tory mantra of the long term economic plan won't look so attractive to the voters.
I'd say we're due a "boom" much more than a recession!0 -
I've read it. It doesn't appear to support your POV.HurstLlama said:
Read Mr.Observer's post below.The_Apocalypse said:
So you believe that if people are poor it's all their fault. A very Victorian view, if I may so. You must regret not only the existence of a welfare state, but also the NHS, state-funded education and so on. After all, self-reliant folk should be able to buy their own health insurance, and their own child's education, surely not?HurstLlama said:
What the Tories said in May is no concern of mine, what a person does for a living and their level of income is mostly a factor of decisions they have made on top of the decisions their parents have made. Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, comes, from what he has posted on here, from a very modest background and now, also from what he has posted on here, earns a very substantial income. What decisions lay behind that change of circumstance? I dunno, ask him and those like him. I doubt the answer will be income support.The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.0 -
Gordon Brown was ideological; he built this nonsense. Cameron & Osborne are artfully selecting the prime cuts of all parties' manifestos to straddle the centre ground and provide sensible moderate government that we can all get behind.The_Apocalypse said:@Tissue_Price You can change incentives in a different way, but raising the hours workers need to work to qualify for tax credits. Second of all, I'd hardly call Cameron a consensus builder - he's not Angela Merkel FGS. It's the head of one of the most ideological governments in modern political history. PR reflects, rather than encourages small-party politics. Small party-politics is happening even under FPTP.
0 -
Yeah, they knew about that result because it was a separate ballot. I repeat in case you don't get it:TheScreamingEagles said:
So how did Cam's vote go up from 56 MPs to 90 MPs between rounds.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.TheScreamingEagles said:
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
Cause Ken Clarke had been eliminated in an earlier round.
During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.0 -
So FPTP with only two candidates is a form of AV? I guess so.0
-
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.Tissue_Price said:
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.TheScreamingEagles said:
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.0 -
So the lowest candidate is eliminated, until we have two candidates, and the winner is the one with the most votes. Sounds a lot like AV to me.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yeah, they knew about that result because it was a separate ballot. I repeat in case you don't get it:TheScreamingEagles said:
So how did Cam's vote go up from 56 MPs to 90 MPs between rounds.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.TheScreamingEagles said:
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
Cause Ken Clarke had been eliminated in an earlier round.
During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.0 -
The best way to reduce benefit bills is for wages to go up. Given the elasticity of the deficit reduction plan, my preference would have been to get wages up before cutting support for the working poor. But Osborne has made his choice. Everyone is to get a pay rise and there will be a living wage, which - by definition - everyone will be able to live on.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's a different point. I was referring to the long-term unemployed. The left, as you know, as part of their standard demonisation of Conservatives, like to smear us as regarding the long-term unemployed as feckless and lazy. It's garbage, of course - a Guardian invention.SouthamObserver said:If they were unemployable they would not be working. These changes affect people in work - and not just those working sixteen hours a week.
Still, the Chancellor has promised them a pay rise and a living wage, so it should all be fine.
On the in-work benefits question, we had the utterly ludicrous position where nine out of ten families were receiving benefits in Gordon Brown's merry-go-round. (Remember that under Labour even someone earning £10K a year was paying income tax). Nearly everyone (apart from Jeremy Corbyn) agrees that the welfare bill is too high. The saving have to come from somewhere, so what do you want to cut? It seems utterly bizarre that people who are actually in work should receive state subsidies on such a massive scale as Brown bequeathed. So, what Osborne has done is made the very sensible decision that in-work benefits should be eased back. Hopefully they'll eventually disappear altogether, returning the welfare state to its actual purpose of helping those who can't help themselves. Yes, in the short term some very deserving lower-paid people will lose out, which is why Osborne has mitigated the effect of the savings by increasing the minimum wage (the rebrand to a 'living wage' is pure politics, of course, but a rather neat example of countering the left's obsession with labels).
The bottom line is that, if you're going to save money from the welfare budget, there's going to be less welfare paid out. Unless you are going to argue that the only change to the welfare budget which can ever be made is to increase it, i.e. that there is no such thing as too much welfare as a proportion of GDP, then someone is going to get less.
An alternative, which if we had a coherent party of the left might be argued for, is a massive increase in taxes for the modestly paid to cover the difference. Personally I don't think that would be economically or morally justified, but at least it would be a coherent position.
What is not coherent is Labour saying simultaneously that they wouldn't increase taxes, would reduce the deficit, and would maintain most of the welfare overspend.0 -
''Yes, in the short term some very deserving lower-paid people will lose out, which is why Osborne has mitigated the effect of the savings by increasing the minimum wage (the rebrand to a 'living wage' is pure politics, of course, but a rather neat example of countering the left's obsession with labels).''
I guess 'low paid' is a bit of a catch-all though, right? I mean a middle class earner 'popping in' to an office two days a week could be classed as 'low paid...??' (but with a partner who is a high earner...??)0 -
With AV, you cast MANY votes all at once, depending on how many people are standing.TheScreamingEagles said:
So the lowest candidate is eliminated, until we have two candidates, and the winner is the one with the most votes. Sounds a lot like AV to me.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yeah, they knew about that result because it was a separate ballot. I repeat in case you don't get it:TheScreamingEagles said:
So how did Cam's vote go up from 56 MPs to 90 MPs between rounds.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.TheScreamingEagles said:
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
Cause Ken Clarke had been eliminated in an earlier round.
During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
I repeat in case you STILL don't get it:
During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
Got it, TSE? Good!
0 -
There's a big difference. Conservative MPs can change their votes between rounds. So previous supporters cannot be relied upon to stay loyal.TheScreamingEagles said:
So the lowest candidate is eliminated, until we have two candidates, and the winner is the one with the most votes. Sounds a lot like AV to me.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yeah, they knew about that result because it was a separate ballot. I repeat in case you don't get it:TheScreamingEagles said:
So how did Cam's vote go up from 56 MPs to 90 MPs between rounds.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.TheScreamingEagles said:
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
Cause Ken Clarke had been eliminated in an earlier round.
During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.
I can't believe I have just written an AV-related post.0 -
It's extremely odd that those who most complain about about the fact that the current government was elected on just 37% of the votes cast are precisely those who were particularly miffed by the 2010-2015 government.0
-
They did cast MANY votes.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.Tissue_Price said:
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.TheScreamingEagles said:
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.0 -
I think you're being a bit obtuse. You can think of an exhaustive ballot as a form of AV in which the electorate gets a peak at the results before declaring their second preference.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.Tissue_Price said:
I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.TheScreamingEagles said:
Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.TheScreamingEagles said:In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.
The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates
With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.0 -
Both Brown and Osborne are ideologues. There are many things I'd call Cameron and Osborne, but sensible and moderate? Somehow, I doubt selective interpretation of 'vested interests' (that apparently are all exclusively reserved to the public sector), being selective about whose benefits to cut, their policy on the BBC, and so on are ideas 'we can all get behind'.Tissue_Price said:
Gordon Brown was ideological; he built this nonsense. Cameron & Osborne are artfully selecting the prime cuts of all parties' manifestos to straddle the centre ground and provide sensible moderate government that we can all get behind.The_Apocalypse said:@Tissue_Price You can change incentives in a different way, but raising the hours workers need to work to qualify for tax credits. Second of all, I'd hardly call Cameron a consensus builder - he's not Angela Merkel FGS. It's the head of one of the most ideological governments in modern political history. PR reflects, rather than encourages small-party politics. Small party-politics is happening even under FPTP.
0 -
Try reading it again and think about what he said.The_Apocalypse said:
I've read it. It doesn't appear to support your POV.HurstLlama said:
Read Mr.Observer's post below.The_Apocalypse said:
So you believe that if people are poor it's all their fault. A very Victorian view, if I may so. You must regret not only the existence of a welfare state, but also the NHS, state-funded education and so on. After all, self-reliant folk should be able to buy their own health insurance, and their own child's education, surely not?HurstLlama said:
What the Tories said in May is no concern of mine, what a person does for a living and their level of income is mostly a factor of decisions they have made on top of the decisions their parents have made. Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, comes, from what he has posted on here, from a very modest background and now, also from what he has posted on here, earns a very substantial income. What decisions lay behind that change of circumstance? I dunno, ask him and those like him. I doubt the answer will be income support.The_Apocalypse said:
So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....HurstLlama said:
If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.The_Apocalypse said:@HurstLlama
My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.
@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.
Now I am off for my afternoon walk. Thanks for the conversation.
P.S. In another post you complained about another poster putting words into your mouth, may I suggest you could, with some expectation of gain, do well to reflect on Matthew Chapter 7 verse 3.0 -
Top trolling. ChapeauTheScreamingEagles said:So the lowest candidate is eliminated, until we have two candidates, and the winner is the one with the most votes. Sounds a lot like AV to me.
0
