politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the CON GE2015 manifesto had been specific about the tax

First.

'I think it will be harder for any party at the next election to make the kind of generalised statements that the Tories did last April/May'

Your having a laugh ?

At the 2010 election the Lib Dems key policy was to abolish tuition fees and once in government tripled them !

As if the SNP can be regarded as experts in mind reading.
Did the Tories promise a big increase in the minimum wage in the election? Was the increase in free child care mentioned?

Let's not forget LDs welching on boundaries in the Coalition Agreement here.

john_zims said:

'I think it will be harder for any party at the next election to make the kind of generalised statements that the Tories did last April/May'

Your having a laugh ?

At the 2010 election the Lib Dems key policy was to abolish tuition fees and once in government tripled them !

Tories have always wanted a reputation for being economical.

It seems that they have achieved that. Albeit with the truth.

Mr. Jonathan, you do recall Labour had a manifesto commitment not to introduce top-up fees, which they did, and not to increase income tax, which they did?

stodge said:

It's a question of degree - saying you will do one thing in your Manifesto and then doing the exact opposite is political suicide as LDs can attest.

As I recall, the Conservatives spoke airily of making cuts in welfare without being specific. Had they specifically targetted pensioner benefits, that would probably have been tantamount to political suicide as well. As it is, there's the unpleasant sense of deliberate obfuscation - the absence of clarity replacing defined policy objectives.

I think the objectives were very clearly defined - reduce the welfare bill. What wasn't defined was the mechanism. And therein lies the problem for all parties; principle is fine but the devil always lies in the detail. Many people want the welfare bill reduced - as long as it doesn't really affect anyone.

OldKingCole said:

john_zims said:

'I think it will be harder for any party at the next election to make the kind of generalised statements that the Tories did last April/May'

Your having a laugh ?

At the 2010 election the Lib Dems key policy was to abolish tuition fees and once in government tripled them !

And look where that got them (us)!

Still hoping for an upturn in fortunes. Otrherwise it's back to my past; (Labour)

Does this mean you only support fortunate parties? If so, I'd advise againstt Labour....

Plato_Says said:

Let's not forget LDs welching on boundaries in the Coalition Agreement here.

john_zims said:

'I think it will be harder for any party at the next election to make the kind of generalised statements that the Tories did last April/May'

Your having a laugh ?

At the 2010 election the Lib Dems key policy was to abolish tuition fees and once in government tripled them !

and promises for a referendum on the EC.

john_zims said:

'I think it will be harder for any party at the next election to make the kind of generalised statements that the Tories did last April/May'

Your having a laugh ? At the 2010 election the Lib Dems key policy was to abolish tuition fees and once in government tripled them !

It was the Tories who tripled them, which was something they always wanted to do. Labour would have done exactly the same. The Lib Dems were stuck. End of story.

The Tories got away with it because they had been in a Coalition Government, and far too many people thought that they were reformed characters. The electorate know better now.

From the perspective of the media war the Govt has put forward third rate communicators, such as John Hayes last week and Matthew Hancock this week. Also its analysis of the impacts clearly overlooked the need to pull together enough examples of how people could reduce or eliminate the impact. A classic example being the self employed QT lady who apparently does not lose anything. Awful presentation, a clear lack of sensitivity analysis in the data forecasts and failing to present an optimistic picture of how strivers could work themselves into a better outcome.

I think it will be harder for any party at the next election to make the kind of generalised statements that the Tories did last April/May.

Hardly. Parties will always make and presumably always have made vague and general statements about many things (they don't want to be pinned down if they can help it, and they know they will have to do some unpopular things if they get into power), and how much they get away with it will depend on the goodwill they have fostered elsewhere, strength of the opposition (and vague/generalness of their own statements) and simple chance, as there seems no rhyme or reason to what we the public will and will not get upset about, even if we are informed in advance or polls suggest we are generally in favour until it actually appears in reality.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

From the perspective of the media war the Govt has put forward third rate communicators, such as John Hayes last week and Matthew Hancock this week. Also its analysis of the impacts clearly overlooked the need to pull together enough examples of how people could reduce or eliminate the impact. A classic example being the self employed QT lady who apparently does not lose anything. Awful presentation, a clear lack of sensitivity analysis in the data forecasts and failing to present an optimistic picture of how strivers could work themselves into a better outcome.

Matthew Hancock manages to wind me up even when I find myself agreeing with his points ! His manner is awful, agreed.

Tories are accumulating baggage no they no longer have their coalition buddies to take all the blame.

Ever wished you could back a candidate who is according to polls at least 30 ahead at 1.5?

Now you can.

Iowa Democratic nomination.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html#polls

notme said:

Jonathan said:

Tories are accumulating baggage no they no longer have their coalition buddies to take all the blame.

Labour are accumulating baggage and they arent even in Government.

Arf. - Corbyn’s baggage alone would take up an entire removal van.

I've been in Edinburgh again today (work this time). When we arrived this morning, my train was greeted by the First Minister...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nicola-sturgeon-attends-unveiling-new-6721409

Heading back south now, enjoying the complimentary Speckled Hen in 1st Class.

@MrHarryCole: Tory MPs have a new sledging technique in the Commons: yelling "purge" at any moderate Labour MP that stands up: https://t.co/A8b7QVP8Nj

@MrHarryCole: “It’s revenge for when they used to shout ‘Labour gain’ at us whenever a marginal MP popped up at PMQs” https://t.co/A8b7QVP8Nj

Jonathan said:

Tories are accumulating baggage no they no longer have their coalition buddies to take all the blame.

Whatever - but they will win again in 2020 with labour nowhere in Scotland or England

Scott_P said:

@MrHarryCole: Tory MPs have a new sledging technique in the Commons: yelling "purge" at any moderate Labour MP that stands up: https://t.co/A8b7QVP8Nj

@MrHarryCole: “It’s revenge for when they used to shout ‘Labour gain’ at us whenever a marginal MP popped up at PMQs” https://t.co/A8b7QVP8Nj

Top banter from the Tories.

The JC piece on Gerald Kaufman is not pretty.

Does his agent not know when to stop digging?

notme said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Tories are accumulating baggage no they no longer have their coalition buddies to take all the blame.

Whatever - but they will win again in 2020 with labour nowhere in Scotland or England

I cant see how Labour can pull back those Scottish constituencies. Many have made a once in a generation change, and they seem to be quite happy with that. If their new MPs are able to present themselves as hard working and standing up for Scotland and people like them, why would they go back?

The big question in Scotland is will the Tories take second spot in Holyrood May 2016 elections

@MichaelLCrick: Corbyn policy chief @AndrewFisher79 pulls out of speech to Croydon Central Labour Party AGM tonight at last minute. Mystery as to reasons

Well that's a first. A political party gets elected by not being totally transparent about what it might do! Who'd have thunk it. It's almost as bad as not including in its manifesto every bill it might pass and every action it might take. What's the world coming to.

notme said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

notme said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Tories are accumulating baggage no they no longer have their coalition buddies to take all the blame.

Whatever - but they will win again in 2020 with labour nowhere in Scotland or England

I cant see how Labour can pull back those Scottish constituencies. Many have made a once in a generation change, and they seem to be quite happy with that. If their new MPs are able to present themselves as hard working and standing up for Scotland and people like them, why would they go back?

The big question in Scotland is will the Tories take second spot in Holyrood May 2016 elections

Such an event would trigger some sensational infighting within Labour. Is it even a possibility? If they did as badly as they did in the General Election they would still be ten percentage points ahead of tories.

It could happen but it would be a surprise. Would Corbyn survive it

The only people who read manifestos are your opponents - after the election.

I was in the Royal Gwent hospital yesterday. My Nan, sadly, got rushed in and died this morning. She was 84 and and had been ill a while. Sad loss, she was a lovely woman.

My Dad, her son, has been in a care home since March with Alzheimers.

It was chaos in the hospital. Dreadful scenes. Patients suffering in corridors, nursing literally sprinting about, concerned looking patients and relatives everywhere. Doctors and nurses having an strategy-meeting in the corridor.

It's less bad where my Dad is, as it's a private home, but even there, the nurses are overwhelmed and have a two-year waiting list for patients.

Whatever side of the political divide you're on, it's obvious we have big problems with people getting older. Osborne's problems with cutting £4bn of welfare money demonstrates how bloody hard it is to be a politician. I think Osborne is wrong to cut money from lower earners, but where else does he cut it? Because anyone who walks into an A&E dept or a care home will see that cuts can't fall there; those places need huge long-term investment.

And investment with what? It's hard to invest when we're still £90bn in deficit. Heavily taxing the rich obviously doesn't work, logic will tell you if it did work every govt in the world would be doing it.

The country is teetering on a cliff-edge of problems. We have thousands of working twenty-somethings who need houses but can't afford them, we have an NHS which needs serious help, we have an ageing population who need care and - at present - there aren't enough people to look after them. It's scary.

I lived a pretty charmed life and problems only started setting in with my family over the past few years as my grandparents got older (my Dad's illness was freakish). Drawing back the curtain on the world of old age, dementia and crippled old people who survive purely on NHS pills and medicines revealed a world I'd never been aware of before. It sounds dramatic but it does change your outlook.

I voted Tory at the last GE, but even I'm starting to realise that middle-earners like me will need to start paying more a lot more taxes. I can't see how we are going to afford it all.

I hope you guys here all live long and charmed lives, but if you do, you may well end up either in a care home or dying in an A&E cubicle like my Nan did this morning. I know there's no nice way to go, but I like to think we can follow the good work the hospice people are doing and make the journey towards death as dignified as possible for as many as possible.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

From the perspective of the media war the Govt has put forward third rate communicators, such as John Hayes last week and Matthew Hancock this week. Also its analysis of the impacts clearly overlooked the need to pull together enough examples of how people could reduce or eliminate the impact. A classic example being the self employed QT lady who apparently does not lose anything. Awful presentation, a clear lack of sensitivity analysis in the data forecasts and failing to present an optimistic picture of how strivers could work themselves into a better outcome.

Those being put up at present probably have the status of cannon fodder. When the generals turn up you'll know things are getting more serious. In the meantime, the arguments in favour of reducing/ eliminating WTC won't go away.

Fenster said:

I was in the Royal Gwent hospital yesterday. My Nan, sadly, got rushed in and died this morning. She was 84 and and had been ill a while. Sad loss, she was a lovely woman.

My Dad, her son, has been in a care home since March with Alzheimers.

It was chaos in the hospital. Dreadful scenes. Patients suffering in corridors, nursing literally sprinting about, concerned looking patients and relatives everywhere. Doctors and nurses having an strategy-meeting in the corridor.

It's less bad where my Dad is, as it's a private home, but even there, the nurses are overwhelmed and have a two-year waiting list for patients.

Whatever side of the political divide you're on, it's obvious we have big problems with people getting older. Osborne's problems with cutting £4bn of welfare money demonstrates how bloody hard it is to be a politician. I think Osborne is wrong to cut money from lower earners, but where else does he cut it? Because anyone who walks into an A&E dept or a care home will see that cuts can't fall there; those places need huge long-term investment.

And investment with what? It's hard to invest when we're still £90bn in deficit. Heavily taxing the rich obviously doesn't work, logic will tell you if it did work every govt in the world would be doing it.

The country is teetering on a cliff-edge of problems. We have thousands of working twenty-somethings who need houses but can't afford them, we have an NHS which needs serious help, we have an ageing population who need care and - at present - there aren't enough people to look after them. It's scary.

I lived a pretty charmed life and problems only started setting in with my family over the past few years as my grandparents got older (my Dad's illness was freakish). Drawing back the curtain on the world of old age, dementia and crippled old people who survive purely on NHS pills and medicines revealed a world I'd never been aware of before. It sounds dramatic but it does change your outlook.

I voted Tory at the last GE, but even I'm starting to realise that middle-earners like me will need to start paying more a lot more taxes. I can't see how we are going to afford it all.

I hope you guys here all live long and charmed lives, but if you do, you may well end up either in a care home or dying in an A&E cubicle like my Nan did this morning. I know there's no nice way to go, but I like to think we can follow the good work the hospice people are doing and make the journey towards death as dignified as possible for as many as possible.

Many condolences.

You raise some important issues in a very poignant post.

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

notme said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

notme said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Tories are accumulating baggage no they no longer have their coalition buddies to take all the blame.

Whatever - but they will win again in 2020 with labour nowhere in Scotland or England

I cant see how Labour can pull back those Scottish constituencies. Many have made a once in a generation change, and they seem to be quite happy with that. If their new MPs are able to present themselves as hard working and standing up for Scotland and people like them, why would they go back?

The big question in Scotland is will the Tories take second spot in Holyrood May 2016 elections

Such an event would trigger some sensational infighting within Labour. Is it even a possibility? If they did as badly as they did in the General Election they would still be ten percentage points ahead of tories.

It could happen but it would be a surprise. Would Corbyn survive it

If we lose our majority in Wales and Zac wins in London as well, then things would look shaky.

I have fully accepted the logic as to why Labour will probably come third in scotland next year.

It's simply FPTP has made the SNP the de-facto party of the left, leftwing voters are not so dissapointed by the SNP that they will vote for Labour, so the SNP won't lose votes there.
On the other hand since Labour doesn't have any but 1 seat in scotland, they will lose all those tactical anti-SNP votes, that they borrowed from the right, to the Conservatives.

In wales Labour is still the principal party of the left and that has been reinforced with Corbyn, so it's PC that will lose votes to Labour, so Labour will do better in terms of votes. However UKIP will enter the welsh assembly, thus depriving probably Labour from a majority.

It will all come down to London, and how identity politics is played due to Khan's religion and nationality.

Completely off topic and not entirely appropriate in light of the earlier post but can I just give a quick word of congratulation to the planners and traffic department of Edinburgh City Council who this evening achieved one of their long term aims of bringing complete gridlock to Edinburgh city centre for nearly 1.5 hours. This remarkable achievement has been long in the planning involving a complex and sophisticated plan of road closures, restrictions on left and right turns, temporary traffic lights and pure unrestrained malice.


The publicly paid officials responsible for this utter chaos hide behind a cloak of anonymity due to a deep sense of self preservation and of course rank cowardice but this should not stop us from giving due recognition to their remarkable achievements. No doubt they look forward to the day when everyone recognises that trying to run a business in Edinburgh or coming to the town for work is simply impossible so the unemployed remaining burghers can walk the streets in peace. Tonight was a notable step towards that objective.

JosiasJessop said:

Fenster said:

I was in the Royal Gwent hospital yesterday. My Nan, sadly, got rushed in and died this morning. She was 84 and and had been ill a while. Sad loss, she was a lovely woman.

My Dad, her son, has been in a care home since March with Alzheimers.

It was chaos in the hospital. Dreadful scenes. Patients suffering in corridors, nursing literally sprinting about, concerned looking patients and relatives everywhere. Doctors and nurses having an strategy-meeting in the corridor.

It's less bad where my Dad is, as it's a private home, but even there, the nurses are overwhelmed and have a two-year waiting list for patients.

Whatever side of the political divide you're on, it's obvious we have big problems with people getting older. Osborne's problems with cutting £4bn of welfare money demonstrates how bloody hard it is to be a politician. I think Osborne is wrong to cut money from lower earners, but where else does he cut it? Because anyone who walks into an A&E dept or a care home will see that cuts can't fall there; those places need huge long-term investment.

And investment with what? It's hard to invest when we're still £90bn in deficit. Heavily taxing the rich obviously doesn't work, logic will tell you if it did work every govt in the world would be doing it.

The country is teetering on a cliff-edge of problems. We have thousands of working twenty-somethings who need houses but can't afford them, we have an NHS which needs serious help, we have an ageing population who need care and - at present - there aren't enough people to look after them. It's scary.

I lived a pretty charmed life and problems only started setting in with my family over the past few years as my grandparents got older (my Dad's illness was freakish). Drawing back the curtain on the world of old age, dementia and crippled old people who survive purely on NHS pills and medicines revealed a world I'd never been aware of before. It sounds dramatic but it does change your outlook.

I voted Tory at the last GE, but even I'm starting to realise that middle-earners like me will need to start paying more a lot more taxes. I can't see how we are going to afford it all.

I hope you guys here all live long and charmed lives, but if you do, you may well end up either in a care home or dying in an A&E cubicle like my Nan did this morning. I know there's no nice way to go, but I like to think we can follow the good work the hospice people are doing and make the journey towards death as dignified as possible for as many as possible.

Many condolences.

You raise some important issues in a very poignant post.

Indeed. Very poignant and full of good sense.

My condolences on your loss, Mr Fenster.

foxinsoxuk said:

@Fenster

You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.

I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.

No the problem is that politicians have for too long pretended that the healthcare system we have in this country is fit for purpose - and is the only one that could be fit for purpose - and that everything will be fine if we just spend more money.

It is a myth.

The UK healthcare system is not fit for purpose, is noticeably worse than many of our European counterparts and will not be able to perform effectively no matter how much money you spend on it.

Until we rid ourselves of the idea that the NHS should be regarded as some sort of national religion and that any word said against it is tantamount to heresy, we will never be able to have meaningful reform to make it fit for purpose.

Speedy said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

notme said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

notme said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Tories are accumulating baggage no they no longer have their coalition buddies to take all the blame.

Whatever - but they will win again in 2020 with labour nowhere in Scotland or England

I cant see how Labour can pull back those Scottish constituencies. Many have made a once in a generation change, and they seem to be quite happy with that. If their new MPs are able to present themselves as hard working and standing up for Scotland and people like them, why would they go back?

The big question in Scotland is will the Tories take second spot in Holyrood May 2016 elections

Such an event would trigger some sensational infighting within Labour. Is it even a possibility? If they did as badly as they did in the General Election they would still be ten percentage points ahead of tories.

It could happen but it would be a surprise. Would Corbyn survive it

If we lose our majority in Wales and Zac wins in London as well, then things would look shaky.

I have fully accepted the logic as to why Labour will probably come third in scotland next year.

It's simply FPTP has made the SNP the de-facto party of the left, leftwing voters are not so dissapointed by the SNP that they will vote for Labour, so the SNP won't lose votes there.
On the other hand since Labour doesn't have any but 1 seat in scotland, they will lose all those tactical anti-SNP votes, that they borrowed from the right, to the Conservatives.

In wales Labour is still the principal party of the left and that has been reinforced with Corbyn, so it's PC that will lose votes to Labour, so Labour will do better in terms of votes. However UKIP will enter the welsh assembly, thus depriving probably Labour from a majority.

It will all come down to London, and how identity politics is played due to Khan's religion and nationality.

Yes I fear Labour will go heavy on his religion and parents nationality... filthy identity politics

notme said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@Fenster

You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.

I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.

Adding a penny on income tax raises £4 billion. If we added 5p (and assumed no behavioural change as a consequence), that would make £20 billion a year, adding 5p on the higher rate would raise £5 billion (assuming no behavioural changes, which is a big assumption). Thats a third of the deficit..

The problem isnt we dont tax enough, its that we spend too much. Tax revenue over the last fifteen years has oscillated between 35% and 38% of GDP. There has been a few one offs when it has peaked. Income tax now raises more or less the same percent of gdp as it did ten years ago, fifteen years ago, twenty years ago.

We can close a deficit (and we need to do so with the economy at this phase of the cycle) by either taxing more or spending less, or both. I think that it needs to be both. A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.

Richard_Tyndall said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@Fenster

You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.

I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.

No the problem is that politicians have for too long pretended that the healthcare system we have in this country is fit for purpose - and is the only one that could be fit for purpose - and that everything will be fine if we just spend more money.

It is a myth.

The UK healthcare system is not fit for purpose, is noticeably worse than many of our European counterparts and will not be able to perform effectively no matter how much money you spend on it.

Until we rid ourselves of the idea that the NHS should be regarded as some sort of national religion and that any word said against it is tantamount to heresy, we will never be able to have meaningful reform to make it fit for purpose.

Well said except that the evidence points to the NHS being a fairly good service at a low cost and international experts agree.

Freggles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@Fenster

You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.

I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.

No the problem is that politicians have for too long pretended that the healthcare system we have in this country is fit for purpose - and is the only one that could be fit for purpose - and that everything will be fine if we just spend more money.

It is a myth.

The UK healthcare system is not fit for purpose, is noticeably worse than many of our European counterparts and will not be able to perform effectively no matter how much money you spend on it.

Until we rid ourselves of the idea that the NHS should be regarded as some sort of national religion and that any word said against it is tantamount to heresy, we will never be able to have meaningful reform to make it fit for purpose.

Well said except that the evidence points to the NHS being a fairly good service at a low cost and international experts agree.

Actually the international expert report that everyone likes to quote said the NHS was good at many things but that it was second to bottom in the one crucial measure of clinical outcomes. So we are great at making sure we track drug usage and keep patients informed but are bad at actually making them better or keeping them alive.

Pulpstar said:

Gordon Brown's Golden rule was borrow to increase non productive current expenditure, or am I mis-remembering it ?

I think you misremember. It was his Prudent Rule.

Richard_Tyndall said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@Fenster

You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.

I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.

No the problem is that politicians have for too long pretended that the healthcare system we have in this country is fit for purpose - and is the only one that could be fit for purpose - and that everything will be fine if we just spend more money.

It is a myth.

The UK healthcare system is not fit for purpose, is noticeably worse than many of our European counterparts and will not be able to perform effectively no matter how much money you spend on it.

Until we rid ourselves of the idea that the NHS should be regarded as some sort of national religion and that any word said against it is tantamount to heresy, we will never be able to have meaningful reform to make it fit for purpose.

Private companies in the NHS just want to pick off the high volume low risk procedures like hip replacements. They are not interested in chronic diseases, dementia, maternity or emergency services. On the rare occasions that they do we see problems like the care home scandals or problems like SERCOs disastrous attempt to run out of hours in Cornwall.

http://m.westbriton.co.uk/GPs-Cornwall-s-hours-service/story-26610802-detail/story.html

The problem is that most expensive health care costs relate to chronic diseases of the elderly, and poor. This is a state that any of us can arrive at, or our families can arrive at. There are other ways of arranging healthcare other than the NHS but they are very rarely cheap or simple. Nearly every country in the developed world struggles with the same issues. The salami can be sliced differently but it is the same salami. Like the tax credits situation the losers are more vocal than the winners.

29 officers investigating Madeleine McCann. I appreciate it's heartbreaking that a little girl is missing - but 29 officers - what on earth were they all doing.

Add in Assange's minders...

The police are being hit very hard by the cuts but perhaps it will focus a bit of mind shifting onto worthwhile/non infinite resource sucking activities

Pulpstar said:

29 officers investigating Madeleine McCann. I appreciate it's heartbreaking that a little girl is missing - but 29 officers - what on earth were they all doing.

Add in Assange's minders...

The police are being hit very hard by the cuts but perhaps it will focus a bit of mind shifting onto worthwhile/non infinite resource sucking activities

I believe they ingathered over 40,000 documents. I am sure that will help solve a crime or at the very least pad the report to make it look like things are being done. Modern policing: don't you love it?

Pulpstar said:

29 officers investigating Madeleine McCann. I appreciate it's heartbreaking that a little girl is missing - but 29 officers - what on earth were they all doing.

Add in Assange's minders...

The police are being hit very hard by the cuts but perhaps it will focus a bit of mind shifting onto worthwhile/non infinite resource sucking activities

Find out why she was left alone?

ReggieCide said:

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.

Why should I pay for other people's kids !

One day they might pay your pension.

Doubt pensions will be as generous when I retire as they are now tbh. The triple lock surely can't last another 34 years !