The line for the tax credit cut is very simple, "we're making it pay to work", "we're relinking hours worked with money earned". Labour created this tangled mess of means tested in work benefits and undoing it is not an easy task. Just as they are with the deficit, Labour are acting like both the arsonist and the person who condemns the firemen for taking too long to put out the fire they started.
Labour created this mess now someone else has to fix it. We have a system which pays people to not take on more work and, perversely, actually takes money off people who work between 17-24 hours per week vs 16 hours per week on the minimum wage. The whole working tax credit system is not fit for purpose and needs junking. We need to eliminate in-working benefits, they are a subsidy for companies who don't want to pay employees a fair wage, nothing more and it amazes me that people on the left can't see how perverse it is that the government and tax payer is subsidising these business models which thrive on low wage labour.
So the solution is to give a single mother who works ~15 hours @NMW a massive take home pay cut?
Another opinion pollster crunch in Canada? The rolling phone poll shows a very definite and increasing move from NDP to Liberals. The online polls don't - though there haven't been any for a couple of days - and they also show a better Conservative score. Two weeks to go so it may get clarified.
The parties are currently busy trading in scare stories - beware TTIP, beware the niqab, etc. Unedifying, but seems to be working for the Liberals- perhaps.
Mr. Simon, the video won't play. Some sort of error.
Mr. Max, you're neglecting the gap between reality and perception (such as the pasty tax). This is already being portrayed as taking money from poor workers.
Mr. T, my sympathies. I've never had such an issue, happily. One hopes you refrain from maiming yourself in the future.
They are not getting a kick in the teeth, they are being subsidised by the rest of us, only rather less so. This will cause them to review their circumstances. Either they will decide that work is not worth it or they will work more. That means the employers using them have to find ways of having those hours filled either by paying more or by employing for longer.
But it's an illusion to think that most people in this situation have a choice. Someone working part-time in a shop can't simply decide to put in an extra 5 hours. I know a number of former constituents who have been trying for a long time to increase their hours, but their employers don't feel the additional work will produce enough additional revenue. This doesn't make either the employers wicked or the staff lazy - it's just a fact of business life. Nor are alternative jobs with more opportunities always readily available.
For people in this situation, it is indeed a kick in the teeth.
Employers exploiting the poorly paid and taking advantage of the fact that the government will step in. Hmm. There may be some hard cases. But there was a time when Labour stood up to exploitative employers not let them off the hook, as DavidL has pointed out.
Palmer is upset at the loss of control of his client state. That's why Brown sprayed money around for 10 years.
Line used is on 'civilians and opposition'. After the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, the Russians have a rather easy line to take on glass houses.
Videos of civilian casualties of the Russian bombing were being released literally before the planes took off. The US is being humiliated and its pussy-footing around with ISIS for 13 months exposed. It's truly catastrophic for them, and it looks like they're prepared to risk escalating the conflict to protect their heart eating chums.
Humiliation will be Russian MiGs literally dropping out of the sky. Those airframes are knackered.
There are no Russian Migs in Syria, me old cock sparrer!
Sukhoi, MiG - it's all the same. Still knackered.
Quite a forensic approach to accuracy there, no wonder you're so well informed on world events.
From the 'comrade' who thinks the Russians are bombing ISIS.
"The next biggest cut comes from the reduction to work allowances in Universal Credit. This represents a substantial shift in the design of the UC system. The work allowance is the amount that a claimant can earn before benefit starts to be withdrawn. Significant allowances were an integral part of the design of UC, intended to give claimants an incentive to move into work. This reform will cost about 3 million families an average of £1,000 a year each. It will reduce the incentive for the first earner in a family to enter work. The equivalent changes in the current tax credit system will have much the same effect. These are changes that will alter the effects and structure of the system quite substantially. Relative to one alternative policy which would have been simply to reduce the levels of child tax credit, the policy the government has chosen will protect those on the lowest incomes, mostly those not in work, at the expense of low earners."
Why the hell weren't the Police intervening to prevent this sort of abuse?
Yes, it might appear quite funny to be throwing balls at people - but it isn't. It is unacceptable under any circumstances and when you view it alongside the other intimidation and assaults that have been recorded over the past 2 days, it is a really poisonous atmosphere.
And one that the Police seem unwilling to prevent from escalating.
The police are hoping it escalates - so they can have a ruck with the Tories....
The line for the tax credit cut is very simple, "we're making it pay to work", "we're relinking hours worked with money earned". Labour created this tangled mess of means tested in work benefits and undoing it is not an easy task. Just as they are with the deficit, Labour are acting like both the arsonist and the person who condemns the firemen for taking too long to put out the fire they started.
Labour created this mess now someone else has to fix it. We have a system which pays people to not take on more work and, perversely, actually takes money off people who work between 17-24 hours per week vs 16 hours per week on the minimum wage. The whole working tax credit system is not fit for purpose and needs junking. We need to eliminate in-working benefits, they are a subsidy for companies who don't want to pay employees a fair wage, nothing more and it amazes me that people on the left can't see how perverse it is that the government and tax payer is subsidising these business models which thrive on low wage labour.
It is perverse, but the answer is not to take the money straight from the pockets of the low paid. Why not increase the minimum wage even further? Isn't it about making work pay?
The NMW will increase in future years but the proposed increases only make sense in a buoyant employment market. I fear it may already be slowing which will make further increases in real terms more difficult. Still carpe diem.
They are not getting a kick in the teeth, they are being subsidised by the rest of us, only rather less so. This will cause them to review their circumstances. Either they will decide that work is not worth it or they will work more. That means the employers using them have to find ways of having those hours filled either by paying more or by employing for longer.
But it's an illusion to think that most people in this situation have a choice. Someone working part-time in a shop can't simply decide to put in an extra 5 hours. I know a number of former constituents who have been trying for a long time to increase their hours, but their employers don't feel the additional work will produce enough additional revenue. This doesn't make either the employers wicked or the staff lazy - it's just a fact of business life. Nor are alternative jobs with more opportunities always readily available.
For people in this situation, it is indeed a kick in the teeth.
Employers exploiting the poorly paid and taking advantage of the fact that the government will step in. Hmm. There may be some hard cases. But there was a time when Labour stood up to exploitative employers not let them off the hook, as DavidL has pointed out.
Palmer is upset at the loss of control of his client state. That's why Brown sprayed money around for 10 years.
That's right. It all worked so well before. Everyone had a well paid job, no-one was exploited.
The line for the tax credit cut is very simple, "we're making it pay to work", "we're relinking hours worked with money earned". Labour created this tangled mess of means tested in work benefits and undoing it is not an easy task. Just as they are with the deficit, Labour are acting like both the arsonist and the person who condemns the firemen for taking too long to put out the fire they started.
Labour created this mess now someone else has to fix it. We have a system which pays people to not take on more work and, perversely, actually takes money off people who work between 17-24 hours per week vs 16 hours per week on the minimum wage. The whole working tax credit system is not fit for purpose and needs junking. We need to eliminate in-working benefits, they are a subsidy for companies who don't want to pay employees a fair wage, nothing more and it amazes me that people on the left can't see how perverse it is that the government and tax payer is subsidising these business models which thrive on low wage labour.
It is perverse, but the answer is not to take the money straight from the pockets of the low paid. Why not increase the minimum wage even further? Isn't it about making work pay?
Removing the idiotic withdrawal will encourage people to take on more work automatically. The most common scenario where people lose out is someone who works 16 hours per week, that person could increase their hours to compensate. It isn't a life changing proposition. What's more if they now add over 5 hours extra per week they actually will earn more than they would have at 21 hours on the NMW with the old WTC system. Nothing in life is static, to make the assumption that people who lose out will stick to just 16 hours per week is short sighted. Encouraging people to work more hours is a good thing, and the child care changes will help people do it. As a package I would be very, very surprised if there were more than a handful of people who are getting less at the end of the month in 2020 than they are today. As I said below, if they are then they need to look at their own inflexibility and see what they can do to earn more.
Mr. Simon, the video won't play. Some sort of error.
Mr. Max, you're neglecting the gap between reality and perception (such as the pasty tax). This is already being portrayed as taking money from poor workers.
Mr. T, my sympathies. I've never had such an issue, happily. One hopes you refrain from maiming yourself in the future.
LOL. Apparently my swearing was particularly uninventive, comprising one word repeated many, many times. The location was Tobago Cays, where in the Pirates movie, Kiera Knightley sets fire to Cap'n Sparrow's stash of rum.
Looking at some of the footage from CPC15 - I see quite a few grinning policemen/women. Those barriers could be moved much further back. Someone is going to get seriously hurt.
Greater Manchester Police are the most left-wing, politically correct in the country, in my opinion (I speak as a Mancunian).
Interesting. I still remember when their then Chief Constable was asked if they had enough resources to cope for the riots and replied they had enough to invade a Central American country. Their robust response to the rioters completely showed up the Met and won a lot of kudos at the time.
Wonder how close Osborne asked them to have the fences? Just a thought.
The line for the tax credit cut is very simple, "we're making it pay to work", "we're relinking hours worked with money earned". Labour created this tangled mess of means tested in work benefits and undoing it is not an easy task. Just as they are with the deficit, Labour are acting like both the arsonist and the person who condemns the firemen for taking too long to put out the fire they started.
Labour created this mess now someone else has to fix it. We have a system which pays people to not take on more work and, perversely, actually takes money off people who work between 17-24 hours per week vs 16 hours per week on the minimum wage. The whole working tax credit system is not fit for purpose and needs junking. We need to eliminate in-working benefits, they are a subsidy for companies who don't want to pay employees a fair wage, nothing more and it amazes me that people on the left can't see how perverse it is that the government and tax payer is subsidising these business models which thrive on low wage labour.
So the solution is to give a single mother who works ~15 hours @NMW a massive take home pay cut?
The solution is that she can take up the free childcare and increase her hours to near full time on the new higher NMW.
We all remember the time before working tax credit when everyone had a well paid job and no-one received exploitative wages.
Before the introduction of the minimum wage and the new higher "living wage", sure. Today the government can force companies to raise wages by edict, which they have done.
Looking at some of the footage from CPC15 - I see quite a few grinning policemen/women. Those barriers could be moved much further back. Someone is going to get seriously hurt.
Greater Manchester Police are the most left-wing, politically correct in the country, in my opinion (I speak as a Mancunian).
Interesting. I still remember when their then Chief Constable was asked if they had enough resources to cope for the riots and replied they had enough to invade a Central American country. Their robust response to the rioters completely showed up the Met and won a lot of kudos at the time.
Wonder how close Osborne asked them to have the fences? Just a thought.
It's a pretty wierd thought.
You think these images are doing Labour any good? That would be a weird thought indeed.
They are not getting a kick in the teeth, they are being subsidised by the rest of us, only rather less so. This will cause them to review their circumstances. Either they will decide that work is not worth it or they will work more. That means the employers using them have to find ways of having those hours filled either by paying more or by employing for longer.
But it's an illusion to think that most people in this situation have a choice. Someone working part-time in a shop can't simply decide to put in an extra 5 hours. I know a number of former constituents who have been trying for a long time to increase their hours, but their employers don't feel the additional work will produce enough additional revenue. This doesn't make either the employers wicked or the staff lazy - it's just a fact of business life. Nor are alternative jobs with more opportunities always readily available.
For people in this situation, it is indeed a kick in the teeth.
Employers exploiting the poorly paid and taking advantage of the fact that the government will step in. Hmm. There may be some hard cases. But there was a time when Labour stood up to exploitative employers not let them off the hook, as DavidL has pointed out.
Palmer is upset at the loss of control of his client state. That's why Brown sprayed money around for 10 years.
That's right. It all worked so well before. Everyone had a well paid job, no-one was exploited.
You asked for a justification of the changes, and we explained them. Unhappy with those answers, but unable to argue against them, you are now just resorting to silly strawman arguments. No-one is claiming that everyone will get a well paid job or that exploitation will never happen. We are just arguing that income will be better than it otherwise will be from continuing the tax credit system unreformed.
Looking at some of the footage from CPC15 - I see quite a few grinning policemen/women. Those barriers could be moved much further back. Someone is going to get seriously hurt.
Greater Manchester Police are the most left-wing, politically correct in the country, in my opinion (I speak as a Mancunian).
Interesting. I still remember when their then Chief Constable was asked if they had enough resources to cope for the riots and replied they had enough to invade a Central American country. Their robust response to the rioters completely showed up the Met and won a lot of kudos at the time.
Wonder how close Osborne asked them to have the fences? Just a thought.
It's a pretty wierd thought.
Actually, not weird at all. If you are known as the nasty party, and there is a clearly much nastier party (even after its switch to kinder politics), wouldn't you want the contrast to be visible?
Sue @English_Woman 6m6 minutes ago More signs the stuttering eurozone is grinding to a halt - Telegraph http://bit.ly/1iZjnXp CAN WE LEAVE NOW PLEASE?
If I had been the man being egged..which I consider to be a physical assault... then I would have floored the egger..as an instinctive reaction to the assault on my person...I wonder which one the so called Police would have arrested
They are not getting a kick in the teeth, they are being subsidised by the rest of us, only rather less so. This will cause them to review their circumstances. Either they will decide that work is not worth it or they will work more. That means the employers using them have to find ways of having those hours filled either by paying more or by employing for longer.
But it's an illusion to think that most people in this situation have a choice. Someone working part-time in a shop can't simply decide to put in an extra 5 hours. I know a number of former constituents who have been trying for a long time to increase their hours, but their employers don't feel the additional work will produce enough additional revenue. This doesn't make either the employers wicked or the staff lazy - it's just a fact of business life. Nor are alternative jobs with more opportunities always readily available.
For people in this situation, it is indeed a kick in the teeth.
Employers exploiting the poorly paid and taking advantage of the fact that the government will step in. Hmm. There may be some hard cases. But there was a time when Labour stood up to exploitative employers not let them off the hook, as DavidL has pointed out.
Palmer is upset at the loss of control of his client state. That's why Brown sprayed money around for 10 years.
That's right. It all worked so well before. Everyone had a well paid job, no-one was exploited.
You asked for a justification of the changes, and we explained them. Unhappy with those answers, but unable to argue against them, you are now just resorting to silly strawman arguments. No-one is claiming that everyone will get a well paid job or that exploitation will never happen. We are just arguing that income will be better than it otherwise will be from continuing the tax credit system unreformed.
No, I am arguing against the idea that Gordon Brown created the tax credit regime because he wanted a client state. He did it because many, many working people struggled to make ends meet. The theory expounded on here - that the market will deliver a living wage - clearly did not actually apply in practice for millions of people.
Brown's solution was clearly not brilliant and did create disincentives. But I don't see the Osborne/IDS solution being much better.
Thick plods are playing into the hands of politicians, who when the whinging starts about cutting numbers, can point out that many of them aren't doing their job anyway.
I remember when Tory friends in the Countryside alliance raided the Labour conference, disrupted the leader speech and dumped carcasses across Brighton.
Sue @English_Woman 6m6 minutes ago More signs the stuttering eurozone is grinding to a halt - Telegraph http://bit.ly/1iZjnXp CAN WE LEAVE NOW PLEASE?
It might have escaped your notice, but we never joined.
A lot of posters on here seem to have forgotten there was an election where significantly more people voted tory than labour. Most of the arguments have been won and - sorry - lost.
TUC bloke yesterday was protesting outside the tory conference had also forgotten this, saying (I paraphrase) he wanted to send a message that the policies put forward by the tories weren't popular.
Define "popular" mate...?
He doesn't agree with the election result and wants you to know it.
Brown's solution was clearly not brilliant and did create disincentives. But I don't see the Osborne/IDS solution being much better.
So in your view the Osborne/IDS solution isn't much better than Brown's attempt for helping poor workers. Yet it is a hell of a lot cheaper.
If you can get something with similar results for a fraction of the cost, that should be pursued, shouldn't it?
You won't get similar results. You'll get worse results. Poor people will be poorer. That is not good for any of us. As we have seen over the years, the cost of poverty is huge.
Off topic, a couple of friends of mine on Facebook have just been assaulted by protestors and are currently down at the police station in Manchester giving statements.
Sue @English_Woman 6m6 minutes ago More signs the stuttering eurozone is grinding to a halt - Telegraph http://bit.ly/1iZjnXp CAN WE LEAVE NOW PLEASE?
It might have escaped your notice, but we never joined.
Not my twitter mate, but interesting for those that want to stay joined to the EU come what may.
Thick plods are playing into the hands of politicians, who when the whinging starts about cutting numbers, can point out that many of them aren't doing their job anyway.
Didn't May pretty much say as much when she last spoke to the Police Federation?
Brown's solution was clearly not brilliant and did create disincentives. But I don't see the Osborne/IDS solution being much better.
So in your view the Osborne/IDS solution isn't much better than Brown's attempt for helping poor workers. Yet it is a hell of a lot cheaper.
If you can get something with similar results for a fraction of the cost, that should be pursued, shouldn't it?
You won't get similar results. You'll get worse results. Poor people will be poorer. That is not good for any of us. As we have seen over the years, the cost of poverty is huge.
They won't be poorer. The market wage rate will go up to compensate.
No, I am arguing against the idea that Gordon Brown created the tax credit regime because he wanted a client state. He did it because many, many working people struggled to make ends meet. The theory expounded on here - that the market will deliver a living wage - clearly did not actually apply in practice for millions of people.
Brown's solution was clearly not brilliant and did create disincentives. But I don't see the Osborne/IDS solution being much better.
If people are struggling to make ends meet you enact policies which do not take more money out of their wages but rather reduce their taxes so that they have more of their own money to live on in the first place. You do something to break up the monopolies and cartels that are in a position to charge higher prices. You ensure that they have the skills necessary to earn more rather than import millions of people who will depress wages at the bottom end. You can mandate the Living Wage. You can build houses so that people are living closer to their work and not having to pay huge sums to live in inadequate housing.
The least sensible thing to do is to take money from people who are already struggling then spend a proportion on bureaucracy then give some of it back. Unless of course you have an eye on the fact that those people may feel grateful to the government for this generosity and, of course, there are all the people employed on the scheme.
Brown's intentions may have been honourable - let's give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment - but he simply could not conceive of any solution which did not have the state doling out money to grateful recipients. His was just a socialist version of a Victorian Lady Bountiful dropping pennies into the hat of the poor man, doffing his cap and thanking her for her kindness.
Now we have his successors spitting at those who say that it might be better all round to give the beggar the chance of a properly paid job and telling Lady Muck to put her pennies away.
I do not give Brown the benefit of the doubt BTW. You'd have to be very trusting not to think that voters' gratitude - and votes - is exactly what he had in mind in the way he designed the system. It's what all politicians - Osborne included - do.
Brown's solution was clearly not brilliant and did create disincentives. But I don't see the Osborne/IDS solution being much better.
So in your view the Osborne/IDS solution isn't much better than Brown's attempt for helping poor workers. Yet it is a hell of a lot cheaper.
If you can get something with similar results for a fraction of the cost, that should be pursued, shouldn't it?
You won't get similar results. You'll get worse results. Poor people will be poorer. That is not good for any of us. As we have seen over the years, the cost of poverty is huge.
They won't be poorer. The market wage rate will go up to compensate.
Brown's solution was clearly not brilliant and did create disincentives. But I don't see the Osborne/IDS solution being much better.
So in your view the Osborne/IDS solution isn't much better than Brown's attempt for helping poor workers. Yet it is a hell of a lot cheaper.
If you can get something with similar results for a fraction of the cost, that should be pursued, shouldn't it?
You won't get similar results. You'll get worse results. Poor people will be poorer. That is not good for any of us. As we have seen over the years, the cost of poverty is huge.
They won't be poorer. The market wage rate will go up to compensate.
Brown's solution was clearly not brilliant and did create disincentives. But I don't see the Osborne/IDS solution being much better.
So in your view the Osborne/IDS solution isn't much better than Brown's attempt for helping poor workers. Yet it is a hell of a lot cheaper.
If you can get something with similar results for a fraction of the cost, that should be pursued, shouldn't it?
You won't get similar results. You'll get worse results. Poor people will be poorer. That is not good for any of us. As we have seen over the years, the cost of poverty is huge.
They won't be poorer. The market wage rate will go up to compensate.
Yes, we saw how that worked so well in the past.
However they spin it, the poor get poorer while the rich get richer.
I remember when Tory friends in the Countryside alliance raided the Labour conference, disrupted the leader speech and dumped carcasses across Brighton.
Nothing changes.
Desperate whattaboutism. Show me evidence of the same level of aggression, violence, intimidation and assault please? Shouting "scum" and giving the middle-finger to everyone, including journalists and apolitical people just trying to do their job?
You might as well use Fathers for Justice as a comparator.
Brown's solution was clearly not brilliant and did create disincentives. But I don't see the Osborne/IDS solution being much better.
So in your view the Osborne/IDS solution isn't much better than Brown's attempt for helping poor workers. Yet it is a hell of a lot cheaper.
If you can get something with similar results for a fraction of the cost, that should be pursued, shouldn't it?
You won't get similar results. You'll get worse results. Poor people will be poorer. That is not good for any of us. As we have seen over the years, the cost of poverty is huge.
They won't be poorer. The market wage rate will go up to compensate.
Yes, we saw how that worked so well in the past.
However they spin it, the poor get poorer while the rich get richer.
I thought you voted for people who were comfortable getting filty rich ?
I remember when Tory friends in the Countryside alliance raided the Labour conference, disrupted the leader speech and dumped carcasses across Brighton.
Nothing changes.
Maybe.... but they didnt spit at or beat up or verbally abuse people as scum. The left are in a league if their own with that sort of behaviour .
Sue @English_Woman 6m6 minutes ago More signs the stuttering eurozone is grinding to a halt - Telegraph http://bit.ly/1iZjnXp CAN WE LEAVE NOW PLEASE?
Typically inept Telegraph article. The premise is that a fall from 54.3 to 53.6 in the PMI when any number over 50 indicates expansion is somehow meaningful. It then speculates that the reduction in fuel costs may be fading before showing a chart which shows they are continuing and have reduced inflation to -0.1%.
It is just illiterate because the agenda is anti EU and it appears to have worked. We can only hope the quality of debate on both sides is going to be better than this.
I remember when Tory friends in the Countryside alliance raided the Labour conference, disrupted the leader speech and dumped carcasses across Brighton.
Nothing changes.
Desperate whattaboutism. Show me evidence of the same level of aggression, violence, intimidation and assault please? Shouting "scum" and giving the middle-finger to everyone, including journalists and apolitical people just trying to do their job?
You might as well use Fathers for Justice as a comparator.
It was very similar, agressive and intimidating. I can't remember spitting, but there were eggs and violence. The carcasses were disgusting and the invasion of the conference hall was genuinely frightening coming as it did 3 years after 9/11 and during the height of Iraq.
I'm not sure I trust any of the leading contenders for leadership of the party on the EU. Not Osborne, May or Morgan - Boris I won't trust or believe. His position will be based on pure political calculation.
Shame, as this will be crucial to me determining my vote. And I really don't want to be left with a choice of Patterson or Fox.
I remember when Tory friends in the Countryside alliance raided the Labour conference, disrupted the leader speech and dumped carcasses across Brighton.
Nothing changes.
Desperate whattaboutism. Show me evidence of the same level of aggression, violence, intimidation and assault please? Shouting "scum" and giving the middle-finger to everyone, including journalists and apolitical people just trying to do their job?
You might as well use Fathers for Justice as a comparator.
It was very similar, agressive and intimidating. I can't remember spitting, but there were eggs and violence. The carcasses were disgusting and the invasion of the conference hall was genuinely frightening coming as it did 3 years after 9/11 and during the height of Iraq.
Absolute and total bollocks. Do you even believe the crap you're writing?
This is your inner red partisan coming out - incidentally, that's the worst part of you as when you keep it at bay your posts are highly readable.
I suspect deep down you are equally repelled and disgusted by the behaviour of these far-left anarchist yobs, but they're nominally of the Left and being critiqued by Tories so you just can't help yourself in trying to muddy the waters.
I remember when Tory friends in the Countryside alliance raided the Labour conference, disrupted the leader speech and dumped carcasses across Brighton.
Nothing changes.
Desperate whattaboutism. Show me evidence of the same level of aggression, violence, intimidation and assault please? Shouting "scum" and giving the middle-finger to everyone, including journalists and apolitical people just trying to do their job?
You might as well use Fathers for Justice as a comparator.
...the invasion of the conference hall was genuinely frightening coming as it did 3 years after 9/11 and during the height of Iraq.
What a delicate little flower. A Labour lead government were pouring bombs and cruise missiles into Iraq, and you were getting teary eyed and wobbly kneed about some tweed clad protestors in the conference hall.
I remember when Tory friends in the Countryside alliance raided the Labour conference, disrupted the leader speech and dumped carcasses across Brighton.
Nothing changes.
Desperate whattaboutism. Show me evidence of the same level of aggression, violence, intimidation and assault please? Shouting "scum" and giving the middle-finger to everyone, including journalists and apolitical people just trying to do their job?
You might as well use Fathers for Justice as a comparator.
It was very similar, agressive and intimidating. I can't remember spitting, but there were eggs and violence. The carcasses were disgusting and the invasion of the conference hall was genuinely frightening coming as it did 3 years after 9/11 and during the height of Iraq.
Absolute and total bollocks. Do you even believe the crap you're writing?
This is your inner red partisan coming out - incidentally, that's the worst part of you as when you keep it at bay your posts are highly readable.
I suspect deep down you are equally repelled and disgusted by the behaviour of these far-left anarchist yobs, but they're nominally of the Left and being critiqued by Tories so you just can't help yourself in trying to muddy the waters.
Sue @English_Woman 6m6 minutes ago More signs the stuttering eurozone is grinding to a halt - Telegraph http://bit.ly/1iZjnXp CAN WE LEAVE NOW PLEASE?
Typically inept Telegraph article. The premise is that a fall from 54.3 to 53.6 in the PMI when any number over 50 indicates expansion is somehow meaningful. It then speculates that the reduction in fuel costs may be fading before showing a chart which shows they are continuing and have reduced inflation to -0.1%.
It is just illiterate because the agenda is anti EU and it appears to have worked. We can only hope the quality of debate on both sides is going to be better than this.
Typical Tory Scum SNP, helping the poor rich along:
....since 2011 the proportion of students from state schools entering Scotland’s elite universities has fallen. And while the proportion of university students from non-professional backgrounds has risen by just 0.2 percentage points, to 26.8%, in England it has gone up from 30.9% to 33.1%.
My younger daughter started Law at Edinburgh a few weeks ago. She said it was very much like being at Dundee High, totally dominated by those from a private school background. Some of the arts courses are not like that but the high tariff ones are. It was not like that in Dundee 35 years ago. The private school kids were a very small minority.
How social mobility is helped by allowing these children of professionals enter their well paid careers without debt is simply beyond me. The price is paid in the number of places the Scottish Government can fund. And guess who loses out there?
Edinburgh has always been second only to St Andrew as the domain of poshos. Glasgow and Dundee are where normal people go to University.
Both my parents went to boarding schools - they both went to Edinburgh for University.
Agence France-Presse @AFP 2m2 minutes ago #BREAKING Russian air force says hit '10 Islamic State targets' in Syria Monday
I like Debka. I sometimes try to read between the lines (as I do with all my news sources) though, as I find them (naturally) quite partisan. They were dead right on Russia's military build up very early on.
Comments
The parties are currently busy trading in scare stories - beware TTIP, beware the niqab, etc. Unedifying, but seems to be working for the Liberals- perhaps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015
Mr. Max, you're neglecting the gap between reality and perception (such as the pasty tax). This is already being portrayed as taking money from poor workers.
Mr. T, my sympathies. I've never had such an issue, happily. One hopes you refrain from maiming yourself in the future.
represents a substantial shift in the design of the UC system. The work allowance is the amount
that a claimant can earn before benefit starts to be withdrawn. Significant allowances were an
integral part of the design of UC, intended to give claimants an incentive to move into work. This
reform will cost about 3 million families an average of £1,000 a year each. It will reduce the
incentive for the first earner in a family to enter work. The equivalent changes in the current tax
credit system will have much the same effect. These are changes that will alter the effects and
structure of the system quite substantially.
Relative to one alternative policy which would have been simply to reduce the levels of child tax
credit, the policy the government has chosen will protect those on the lowest incomes, mostly
those not in work, at the expense of low earners."
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/Budgets 2015/Summer/opening_remarks.pdf
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/651068658932948992?lang=en
More signs the stuttering eurozone is grinding to a halt - Telegraph http://bit.ly/1iZjnXp CAN WE LEAVE NOW PLEASE?
Brown's solution was clearly not brilliant and did create disincentives. But I don't see the Osborne/IDS solution being much better.
Thick plods are playing into the hands of politicians, who when the whinging starts about cutting numbers, can point out that many of them aren't doing their job anyway.
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/slump-in-sterling-means-we-should-think-again-about-joining-the-euro-6833105.html
So much for maintaining the status quo.
Nothing changes.
If you can get something with similar results for a fraction of the cost, that should be pursued, shouldn't it?
The least sensible thing to do is to take money from people who are already struggling then spend a proportion on bureaucracy then give some of it back. Unless of course you have an eye on the fact that those people may feel grateful to the government for this generosity and, of course, there are all the people employed on the scheme.
Brown's intentions may have been honourable - let's give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment - but he simply could not conceive of any solution which did not have the state doling out money to grateful recipients. His was just a socialist version of a Victorian Lady Bountiful dropping pennies into the hat of the poor man, doffing his cap and thanking her for her kindness.
Now we have his successors spitting at those who say that it might be better all round to give the beggar the chance of a properly paid job and telling Lady Muck to put her pennies away.
I do not give Brown the benefit of the doubt BTW. You'd have to be very trusting not to think that voters' gratitude - and votes - is exactly what he had in mind in the way he designed the system. It's what all politicians - Osborne included - do.
see supply and demand.
You might as well use Fathers for Justice as a comparator.
Nicky Morgan: I Would Never Campaign to Leave EU http://order-order.com/2015/10/05/nicky-morgan-i-would-never-campaign-to-leave-eu/ …
Well, well. What a surprise. Not.
It is just illiterate because the agenda is anti EU and it appears to have worked. We can only hope the quality of debate on both sides is going to be better than this.
Shame, as this will be crucial to me determining my vote. And I really don't want to be left with a choice of Patterson or Fox.
This is your inner red partisan coming out - incidentally, that's the worst part of you as when you keep it at bay your posts are highly readable.
I suspect deep down you are equally repelled and disgusted by the behaviour of these far-left anarchist yobs, but they're nominally of the Left and being critiqued by Tories so you just can't help yourself in trying to muddy the waters.
http://www.debka.com/article/24926/Chinese-warplanes-to-join-Russian-air-strikes-in-Syria-Russia-gains-Iraqi-air-base
Agence France-Presse @AFP 2m2 minutes ago
#BREAKING Russian air force says hit '10 Islamic State targets' in Syria Monday
It is just illiterate because the agenda is anti EU and it appears to have worked. We can only hope the quality of debate on both sides is going to be better than this.
Telegraph has long been pathetic.
Both my parents went to boarding schools - they both went to Edinburgh for University.