Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

Could be another interesting by-election. A nailed on certainty that Labour will keep it but UKIP could again put a few Tory noses firmly out of joint.

If UKIP didn't even exist the Tories would still be hard pressed to retain their deposit in South Shields. It's solid Labour so I don't think the result of this one will worry Cameron and Co. A few more Eastleigh's where they get panned by UKIP in winnable seats would be a different matter..

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

If UKIP start picking up votes in working class areas too then it could be a concern.

[tonyh29]

If UKIP start picking up votes in working class areas too then it could be a concern.

 

Cough ** Rotherham By Election ** Cough

 

I thought with UKIP being  "BNP Lite" and the BNP  flirt with the working class vote  , UKIP doing well with the working classes would be inevitable

 

Be interestng to see where UKIP come though , they didn't even have a candidate in 2010 from what I can see

[Awol]

If UKIP start picking up votes in working class areas too then it could be a concern.

 

Cough ** Rotherham By Election ** Cough

[drat01]

May has lost in her appeal against the blocking of Abu Qatada's deportation. 

Interesting that the Tory supporters on here have chosen to ignore this, rather concentrating on a Labour MP who is quitting.

 

May, Cameron and a lot of the Gvmt have been shown up again over this. I remember very well how the same Tory supporters were adamant she had done nothing wrong, but it seems that the judiciary don't agree.

 

Another nail in a failing Gvmt with total incompetents in charge. Don't worry though we have that "nice" chap Boris waiting in the wings and we know that he is very likeable in a thuggish, lies sort of way

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The concern isn't so much to do with UKIP getting in power but rather how far this immigration ball will roll.

 

I don't for a second think the immigration policy is fine as it currently stands, however I worry that this finger pointing perpetuated by UKIP and picked-up (now) by the main parties and the media will get nasty when the cuts really hit home.

 

I just think it is a rather cynical misdirection and I'm concerned how deep the feelings will run when things get worse, especially when working class communities will bare the brunt of it and unskilled workers will perceive (or rather, be told) that they are losing out to cheaper labour coming in from abroad.

[Mantis]

May has lost in her appeal against the blocking of Abu Qatada's deportation. 

Interesting that the Tory supporters on here have chosen to ignore this, rather concentrating on a Labour MP who is quitting.

 

May, Cameron and a lot of the Gvmt have been shown up again over this. I remember very well how the same Tory supporters were adamant she had done nothing wrong, but it seems that the judiciary don't agree.

 

Another nail in a failing Gvmt with total incompetents in charge. Don't worry though we have that "nice" chap Boris waiting in the wings and we know that he is very likeable in a thuggish, lies sort of way

The Abu Qatada case has got very little to do with party politics. Jacqui Smith tried to deport him as well. Unfortunately she was also unsuccessful.

[tonyh29]

May has lost in her appeal against the blocking of Abu Qatada's deportation.

Interesting that the Tory supporters on here have chosen to ignore this, rather concentrating on a Labour MP who is quitting.

May, Cameron and a lot of the Gvmt have been shown up again over this. I remember very well how the same Tory supporters were adamant she had done nothing wrong, but it seems that the judiciary don't agree.

Another nail in a failing Gvmt with total incompetents in charge. Don't worry though we have that "nice" chap Boris waiting in the wings and we know that he is very likeable in a thuggish, lies sort of way

Not just any MP but the man the party and its supporters wanted to lead it , just the parties real leaders had other ideas

[coda]

Open letter to Dave from more than 50 social policy professors

 

As the UK's leading experts on social policy and the welfare state, we urge the government to reconsider the benefit cuts scheduled for 1 April and to ensure that no further public spending cuts are targeted on the poorest in our society. We have two major concerns.

First, as the government's own impact assessment has demonstrated, the 1% uprating in the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act will have a disproportionate effect on the poorest. Families with children will be particularly hard hit, pushing a further 200,000 children into poverty. In addition, those with low to middle earnings and single-earner households will be caught by the 1% limit on tax credit rates. These new cuts come on top of the cumulative impact of previous tax, benefit and public expenditure cuts which have already meant the equivalent to a loss of around 38% of net income for the poorest tenth of households and only 5% for the richest tenth.

Second, the welfare state is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. All developed countries have them and the less developed ones are striving to establish their own. Welfare states depend on a fair collection and redistribution of resources, which in turn rests upon the maintenance of trust between different sections of society and across generations. Misleading rhetoric concerning those who have to seek support from the welfare state, such as the contrast between "strivers" and "shirkers", risks undermining that trust and, with it, one of the key foundations of modern Britain.

In fact the divisions are not so simple. For example, the borderline between low and no pay is fluid. Families move in and out of work and in and out of poverty. Around one in six of economically active people have claimed jobseeker's allowance at least once in the last two years (almost 5 million people). The record level of youth unemployment accounts for most of those households where no one has ever worked. Around 6.5 million people are underemployed and want to work more. The 50% rise in families receiving working tax credits since 2003 reflects the 20% increase in the working poor, as one in five women and one in seven men earn less than £7 per hour. Now the majority of children and working-age adults in poverty live in working, not workless, households.

In the interests of fairness and to protect the poorest, as well as to avoid the risk of undermining the consensus on the British welfare state, the government should increase taxation progressively on the better off, those who can afford to pay (including ourselves), rather than cutting benefits for the poorest.

[markavfc40]

That open letter is spot on but it will fall on deaf hears. The way the poorest and most vulnerable in society are being treated is nothing short of a disgrace. I'm not rich by any stretch but I would happily pay a few quid more in tax, and I'd like to think most others who can afford to would also, to help ensure those most in need were protected. The poorest and most vulnerable should be the last port of call but this Government have chosen to make them the first with attacks not just on benefits but the public services that those same individuals are most reliant on. Its disgusting.

 

There is no doubt that a tiny percentage of people are playing the benefits system but lets not stigmatize and penalize everyone on benefits due to the actions of the few.

Edited March 28, 2013 by markavfc40

[Awol]

I just think it is a rather cynical misdirection and I'm concerned how deep the feelings will run when things get worse, especially when working class communities will bare the brunt of it and unskilled workers will perceive (or rather, be told) that they are losing out to cheaper labour coming in from abroad.

That 'perception' (or reality depending on your employment/trade) has been around since 2006 when border controls for Polish people were dropped. The response of the middle class (who were the people benefiting from these depressed wages) was to call those complaining about it, racist. The politicians who's policies created it are now tapping into that vein of bitterness in the hope of exploiting it electorally. Even Labour have caught on, hence their recent mea culpa and apologies for getting it wrong in 2006.

 

Skilled immigration is vital for the economy and should be properly managed on a work permit system. Unskilled immigration when we have a million young people unemployed is bonkers.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Awol

[tonyh29]

Good quote from McBride RE the socialist £350k a year charity worker

Milliband will go down as the Herol Graham of UK Politics . The best of his generation but no chin when it mattered

Edited March 28, 2013 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

Who gives a shit about David Miliband (or Damian McBride, for that matter)?

 

Tony, are you really making the suggestion that someone earning that level of salary cannot be a socialist (I'm not sure he is, for what it's worth)?

What is the salary ceiling?

Edited March 28, 2013 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

If others can stupidly repeat the view that ALL Tories are xxxx and yyy ( i accept this isn't a view put forward by yourself ) then for the purposes of this forum socialists aren't allowed to earn £350k a year ... Simples.

i suppose one could take the view who gives a shit what anyone * have to say , or one could take the view that as its an Internet forum one could offer a view and opinion on a wide range if issues , just a thought ....

Each of the candidates were happy to use the phrase, though David Miliband was perhaps the most indirect in his answer: "It says on the Labour party card that we are a democratic socialist party, and I am happy to subscribe to that."

* edited from " you " to " anyone " , apologies snowy

Edited March 28, 2013 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

If others can stupidly repeat the view that ALL Tories are xxxx and yyy then for the purposes of this forum socialists aren't allowed to earn £350k a year ... Simples.

 

I apologize for originally using 'silly' (hence why I edited it out) - having read this though, I may have to retract the apology.

 

i suppose one could take the view who gives a shit what you have to say...

Before this escalates, I do apologize if you took my 'who gives a shit' to be a criticism of you rather than an annoyance about the Miliband D stories/comments that we have had to listen to. He went a while back in terms of actual politics - good riddance to him, too.

Edited March 28, 2013 by snowychap

[Jon]

Good quote from McBride RE the socialist £350k a year charity worker

Milliband will go down as the Herol Graham of UK Politics . The best of his generation but no chin when it mattered

I don't really agree with that, and I think it's a sad swipe from a bitter Brownite.

 

Had Dave Miller Band gone after Brown in 2009 (or indeed at any point before 'losing' the GE) he would have inherited an unpopular Labour Party which had been in pwoer for a lomg time. I have few doubts that he'd have toppled Brown, but the situation he would have inhereited would not have been a great one. Not by a long shot. 

 

I think he calculated, rightly, that the best bet would be to wait for Brown to lose the GE. Brown would then have to go, and he could the strike. Had Miller Band decided to strike before the GE, he may perhaps at best have secured a narrow win for a govt low on popularity, during a time of huge economic turmoil.

 

I think he bided his time, waited for the correct opportunity, and was foilied by the Unions. Narrowly.

 

WhenLabour get back into power in 2 years time, ther situation for the new PM would be infinitely better than 5 years previously, as hopefully the domestic and Uk economy begin to stabilise, and the bad-will that was felt to the labour govt has subsided over the 5 years of disastrous Tory rule.

[tonyh29]

If others can stupidly repeat the view that ALL Tories are xxxx and yyy then for the purposes of this forum socialists aren't allowed to earn £350k a year ... Simples.

I apologize for originally using 'silly' (hence why I edited it out) - having read this though, I may have to retract the apology.

i suppose one could take the view who gives a shit what you have to say...

Before this escalates, I do apologize if you took my post to be a criticism of you rather than an annoyance about the Miliband D stories/comments that we have to listen to. He went a while back in terms of actual politics and good riddance to him, too.

Oops , my bad

ignore me I'm just grumpy as my flight is delayed

Edited March 28, 2013 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

Oops

ignore me I'm just grumpy as my flight is delayed

No worries.

French air traffic control on strike again?

[tonyh29]

Just been upgraded so I'm in a happy place now

[snowychap]

WhenLabour get back into power in 2 years time, ther situation for the new PM would be infinitely better than 5 years previously, as hopefully the domestic and Uk economy begin to stabilise, and the bad-will that was felt to the labour govt has subsided over the 5 years of disastrous Tory rule.

I'm not so sure about that, Jon.

As was shown by the IFS analysis after the budget (and in reports about Beaker and the spending review to come), it is likely that the government will be bequeathing to its successor (whichever flavour that may be) large departmental budget reductions for 2015/6 (and beyond) and a notional idea of a ceiling for Annual Managed Expenditure (which seems to be a loose idea about setting a number and acknowledging that one doesn't really have control about whether one stays below that).

If people thought that it was a good idea not to win the last election, it may turn out to be utter madness to try and win the next.