Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Ideally I don't want people in full time work to be reliant on the state. They're working, pay them enough to live on rather than state top ups.
This +1000. Madness that a family in full time work needs benefits to get by.
Combined with a policy of affordable rented social housing on brownfield sites. Initial cost would be saved by long term savings our of the housing benefits budget.
Tories will struggle to get a majority IMO for a number of reasons
- the new expenses story will break
- young people will vote en masse this time around and won't be voting Tory
- Remainers will vote en masse for labour or lib dem; there will be record turnout
I think we could be looking at another Tory-Lib Dem coalition, or even a Labour-Lib Dem coalition.
Interesing times...
@MoreCash agreed with everything in your post
Ring fencing the NHS budget is is popular, if the NHS gets more, everyone else has to get less. So taking from the disabled is a vote winner, just in a round about way.
This. Ditto education.
BTW I will give Brown credit for keeping us out of the euro
Basically if you have one eye on an election for a whole term it's pretty hard to get a grip on spending - there's never a right time.
Short-termism. Sums up the mess of our political system.
@badnewz the "expenses story" is simply about left and right pocket election spending, whether it was locally raised money or central funds. There are different pots / limits for each. Obviously lying on an official document is fraud so its serious but nothing like the nonsense which went on before.
Morecash - I was referring to the fact that Brown got us back into growth after the bankers crash and prior to the 2010 election (and growth actually fell when the Tories got in).
jambalaya - Member
@badnewz the "expenses story" is simply about left and right pocket election spending, whether it was locally raised money or central funds. There are different pots / limits for each. Obviously lying on an official document is fraud so its serious but nothing like the nonsense which went on before.
indeed, you absolutely must not mention Tory Sleaze!
tbf the Tories were running scared of the kippers at the time , they had to pull out all the stops and integrity and probity really is secondary to being in power
😉
@Kerley. Can you explain to me how damaging the middle classes will help social mobility?
Damaging? What by having to buy the next level of Audi down than they actually wanted? Or having one less holiday a year. Get some perspective.
There are more elderly people, more people in general and services simply need to be given the money to grow. If that means taxing middle classes and above then that is the way to do it. It doesn't stop anyone becoming middle class and has no effect on social mobility.
If you want more tax income don't start with punishing the middle classes, look at how you grow the middle classes then tax accordingly.
Wasn't that the idea behind increasing the numbers going to university? Worked out well didn't it?
Article here giving insight into the election expenses "scandal"
Most voters aren't really concerned about who paid for the ridiculous battle bus. Central office will offer a sacrifice, pay the fines and it'll all go away.
Wasn't that the idea behind increasing the numbers going to university? Worked out well didn't it?
That's not really a reason to not try and lift people out of being poor. The tactic may have failed but that doesn't devalue the objective.
Rules shouldn't be broken, obviously, but basing your vote solely on whether a party has overspent and lied about their own campaign funding seems a bit stupid to me.
Given that there are so many better reasons to not vote Tory!
was it really about lifting folk out of poverty? Genuine question as i never really understood why Blair wanted 50% to go to uni - though i did not really listen that well to what he said.
The only ones who got rich were the providers of degrees and colleges ..its a boom industry for the factories that produce qualifications [ society has little use for]
4000 plus reasons not to vote Tory on http://calumslist.org damaging the middle class? Get bent
What by having to buy the next level of Audi down than they actually wanted?
As much as i enjoy demonising Audi drivers i don't believe what you are suggesting will deliver the results when not performed in conjunction with wider policies.
All forms of revenue generating activities need to be addressed. Not just Audi drivers. And those that are in work need to be paid enough.
Middle class here. Might even be rich by Corbyn's definition.
I don't have a Audi. Couldn't afford it / don't really like it.
But then I try not to live on credit.
was it really about lifting folk out of poverty?
That's a good question, I'm off for a Google.
I'm not sure what I'd be classed at, income is well below average but i listen to Radio 3.
As much as i enjoy demonising Audi drivers i don't believe what you are suggesting will deliver the results when not performed in conjunction with wider policies.All forms of revenue generating activities need to be addressed. Not just Audi drivers. And those that are in work need to be paid enough.
Wasn't demonising Audi drivers. Was just an example of a car and the fact a lesser model may have to be purchased. i.e. hardly harming anyone.
Yes, all revenue generating actives need to be looked at - the point is that someone should be trying and starting at the top and middle not at the bottom.
Middle class here. Might even be rich by Corbyn's definition.
Where I think this @us and them' might trip up is the middle, where I think the majority of people actually are.
I'm struggling to tell if I'm part of Corbyn's problem or in need of his help...
Most voters aren't really concerned about who paid for the ridiculous battle bus. Central office will offer a sacrifice, pay the fines and it'll all go away.
This.
Agreed Jamba. But we should still jail the fraudsters and ban the party concerned from contesting those seats. Harsh punishment is the only sort they'll listen to. A short sharp shock.
Make sense?
[quote=jambalaya ]
Most voters aren't really concerned about who paid for the ridiculous battle bus. Central office will offer a sacrifice, pay the fines and it'll all go away.
This.
Rules exist to make elections fair and they were broken and therefore the results were unfair
Anyone who is not partisan or who has honour and principles will care hence
Imagine that remain and labour won by cheating.....still saying the same thing?
I am you are not
That's not really a reason to not try and lift people out of being poor. The tactic may have failed but that doesn't devalue the objective.
I'm all in favour of raising people above being in poverty or being poor, but that's not the same as increasing the numbers of the middle classes.
Agreed Jamba. But we should still jail the fraudsters and ban the party concerned from contesting those seats. Harsh punishment is the only sort they'll listen to. A short sharp shock.
Make sense?
None at all really. If you try to put forward ridiculous over the top sanctions for what seems like an accounting cock up you just come across as hysterical and tend to loose all credibility 🙁
If you talk about fraud and jailing people the public assume your talking about people lining their own pockets. This isn't the case here.
I completely understand political opponents of the Tories trying to make something of it though. I'm sure they would do the same, thats politic for you.
what seems like an accounting cock up
[img] 
[/img]
Its not an accounting cock up - its deliberate fraud
Pretty sure increasing the number at university was originally a pre'97 Conservative policy?
The definition of poverty is, IIRC, is having a household income of less than 60% of the median household income across the UK - so, less than £15,700. Almost a quarter of people living in poverty in the UK are in work.
Extreme poverty is defined as 40% of the median wage - a household income of less than £10k.
We've got a household income of considerably less than Corbyn's £70k and are comfortably well off (to the extent that we didn't claim benefits - tax credits and nursery vouchers - that we [i]could[/i] have claimed when we were younger and poorer), despite the lack of public sector pay rises since 2010.
An individual earning >£70k pa is in the top ten percent of earners. They're 'rich', by [i]some[/i] definition of the word.
An individual earning >£70k pa is in the top ten percent of earners. They're 'rich', by some definition of the word.
Nearer the top 5% isn't it. And yes, anybody earning £70k is rich relative to the rest of UK. Don't ask the people earning £70k if they are rich as they will always say they don't feel it as people tend to spend whatever they get up to a point where it is hard to spend it all (i.e. someone earning £100k per month)
An individual earning >£70k pa is in the top ten percent of earners. They're 'rich', by some definition of the word.
Comfortably affluent perhaps? I've met rich folk and they aren't on £71k pa
Fully understand if folk want the &71k-ers to pay a little more tax though.
where as when you try and minimise electoral fraud in a selection you look like what exactly?If you try to put forward ridiculous over the top sanctions for what seems like an accounting cock up you just come across as hysterical and tend to loose all credibility
If you talk about fraud and jailing people the public assume your talking about people lining their own pockets.
Possibly they know what the word actually means though isnt it
Fraud = wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
quite clearly it isThis isn't the case here.
and i fully understand tories trying to minimise it due to their personal politics and lack of personal ethicsI completely understand political opponents of the Tories trying to make something of it though. I'm sure they would do the same, thats politic for you.
I dont care who did it, it is illegal and the law still stands. No one is above it and we should not turn a blind eye just because we support the party who did it.
The expansion of places at Uni - sounded like a good aspirational policy but.....what was required was a focus on improving the standard of primary education such that, at age 11, children were academically prepared for the step-change into secondary education.
There has been discussion for years about the first several months of secondary education being spent on getting children to the level they should have attained on leaving primary school.
There has also been much focus on the same concerns when transitioning from secondary to uni.
One of my concerns at the time - and is still a concern - is how our service based economy can provide the opportunities which grads believe should be theirs when it's clear that net jobs growth is not high enough to absorb these new entrants into the job market in the types of job many of them believe they should have (sense of entitlement?)
An unwanted side effect of this policy is that it opened the door to Unis charging tuition fees; the law of unintended consequences.
It could also be argued that (some) degrees have been devalued.
A far better long term view would have been to develop and seriously fund an industrial development policy with regional organisations coordinated at a national level and staffed by industry leaders.
Retail sales continue to fall, financial services organisations are making transition arrangements for post-brexit and uk manufacturing is becoming increasingly niche.
Life is full of lost opportunities.
You'll get sent off for being rational.
it's clear that net jobs growth is not high enough to absorb these new entrants into the job market in the types of job many of them believe they should have (sense of entitlement?)
I don't think it's a sense of entitlement at all. How come you suddenly need to be a graduate to man a call centre? The problem is there are not and never were enough proper graduate jobs for the increase in graduates brought about by government policy.
It could also be argued that (some) degrees have been devalued.
I have little doubt that is indeed the case. Not necessarily a dumbing down of the courses but simply as a result of the sort jobs now considered "graduate level".
I'm all in favour of raising people above being in poverty or being poor, but that's not the same as increasing the numbers of the middle classes.
The two things can link together. Increase the size of the middle classes and get more net contributors and fewer net beneficiaries, more money for the NHS, mental health, and economic development projects. You'd also see more money spent in local communities increasing opportunities for small businesses?.
I dont care who did it, it is illegal and the law still stands. No one is above it and we should not turn a blind eye just because we support the party who did it.
I don't think anyone is saying no offence has been committed, only the level of response that is needed to deal with it in a fair and proportional manner.
Largely the offence
The majority of the police complaints concern constituencies visited by the Tories’ RoadTrip2015 battlebuses – a campaign already tarnished by allegations of bullying and sexual harassment among young activists. It is alleged that the party registered RoadTrip’s transport and accommodation costs as national spending despite its use as part of individual MPs’ constituency campaigns Party spending on the latter is limited to £15,000, and the key contention in play is whether money spent locally should have been declared locally.
Proportional will probably be fines, warnings and reprimands.
Even though it might be interpreted as a fraud, it's not bribes, ballot box stuffing misallocation of money for personal use. The sort of thing the general public (voters) consider fraud to be.
The only reason some are trying to make it into a shocking incident is to create political ammunition. I get this but I think it's worth pointing out that most people don't care what particular Conservative party budget pays for some clowns hotel bills, only that it isn't being taken from their pockets.
I wish i was as qualified as you to say what the public do and do not think and what they care about
I am glad I am not as confused as you are about what fraud is
The police, cps and ultimately the courts will decide.
My 2 pence is its really not a big deal, its a few £ spent from one pot instead of the other. As for bullying Momentum have the Gold Medal for that.
Agreed Jamba. But we should still jail the fraudsters and ban the party concerned from contesting those seats
People lying on their mortgage applications is fraud. That brought down Northern Rock and Halifax Bank of Scotland (as a minimum). Send all those borrowers to jail ? No, blame the banks.
As for bullying Momentum have the Gold Medal for that.
Don't be silly you can't out nasty the nasty party
Tory manifesto seems to be going well so far,
Keeping foreign aid at current level to piss off the racists
Brexit that will satisfy no one, especially leavers; keeping FOM and ECJ supremacy!
Now Hammond fancies increasing VAT and NI- just to hammer the poorest a bit more...
That's every demographic upset
@jambayla...Your kidding. The Tory party can be held partly responsible for a murdered MP and directly responsible for an intern suicide, along with policies that drive the marganalised in our society to commit suicide/die of poor health as a result of poverty their policies have created.
Get a grip with your jibes of nastiness pointed at the Labour party. 🙄
So tories partly responsible for murder of jo cox?
That is quite a statement.
As for being directly responsible for an intern committing suicide - that is even more objectionable.
I agree they failed to properly discharge their duty of care; young cons chairman did a pispoor job and investigaton was far from thorough.
As for deaths/suicides of marginalised in society - that's not unique to tories being governing party. It's desperately sad but also happened under labour govs.
A few facts to support your assertions would be helpful.
@frankconway..If you wish to find the facts you seek it's all out there in the public domain.
People lying on their mortgage applications is fraud. That brought down Northern Rock and Halifax Bank of Scotland (as a minimum). Send all those borrowers to jail ? No, blame the banks.
I like your analogy Jamba. Those people will have lost their houses and be prevented from getting a mortgage in future. The analogy is lose your seat and not allowed to stand again.
@eden - that's a clear cop-out on your part in saying '.......it's all in the public domain'.
You made three big statements without providing a shred of evidence and then, when asked, your response is basically - it's out there, go and find it for yourself.
Those people will have lost their houses and be prevented from getting a mortgage in future.
Not necessarily true. My brother inlaw is self employed and exaggerated his income to get a mortgage. The problem came when the IR asked why he hadn't declared this amount on his tax return. He came clean with them and they accepted his explanation, probably because it was so prevelant at the time. His mortgage provider weren't bothered in the slightest. Payments were up to date, so in his case so they were happy to let him just carry on.
My 2 pence is its really not a big deal, its a few £ spent from one pot instead of the other.
People lying on their mortgage applications is fraud.
Where do you draw the distinction between lying=ok/not ok?
@ulysse - without poring over every detail, it appears that a number of the suicides listed were of people with known mental health problems.
I'm no expert in mental health but would suggest many of those named could have had a number of 'triggers' which would have resulted in suicide; problems arising from gov social policies may well have been one of a number of concerns.
Can you say definitively that gov social policies in any form were [b]entirely [/b]responsible for the suicides listed?
For your information I do a lot of voluntary work with the homeless - rough sleepers specifically - and have more than a passing interest in suicide prevention as a direct result; the incidence of homeless suicides is much higher than in the general population.
Taxi25 - well by jamba's logic he ought to have been locked up. My suspicion, given he was definitely lying, was he was also defrauding the public purse, but he may not have been.
"
My suspicion, given he was definitely lying, was he was also defrauding the public purse, but he may not have been."
That's the problem with trying to define absolutes of right and wrong.
There isn't any, most things aren't black or white but a constantly shifting shade of grey. I always try to avoid statments such as "rules are rules" or "the laws the law and must be obeyed" because in reality it's never that simple.
I think we could be looking at another Tory-Lib Dem coalition
I don't see this for several reasons:
The last Tory-LD coalition didn't end well for the LDs and they won't want to repeat the experience; I suspect it wouldn't be popular with the LD membership either,
The LDs are very pro Europe and the Tories are very anti, which, let's face it, is what the election is going to be fought on
The LDs have gone (centre) left under Farron and the Tories have gone right under May; very different to Cameron and Clegg
Greg Mulholland has said on Twitter they won't go into coalition with anyone
There was a feeling last time round that a majority government was the only way to tackle the financial crisis, hence the coalition; this isn't the case now
I don't see them going into coalition with Labour either; confidence and supply, maybe
apparently you work in the finance sector and then say things like thatPeople lying on their mortgage applications is fraud. That brought down Northern Rock and Halifax Bank of Scotland
it is not even tenuous it is just a complete fabrication
Precise its securitisation model failed and there was a run on the bank.
Under the chairmanship of Matt Ridley, Northern Rock had a business plan which involved borrowing heavily in the UK and international money markets, extending mortgages to customers based on this funding, and then re-selling these mortgages on international capital markets, a process known as securitisation. In August 2007, when the global demand from investors for securitised mortgages was falling away, the lack of money raised by this means that Northern Rock became unable to repay loans from the money market. This problem had been anticipated by the financial markets, which drew greater attention to it. On 14 September 2007, the bank sought and received a liquidity support facility from the Bank of England, to replace funds it was unable to raise from the money market. This led to panic among individual depositors, who feared that their savings might not be available should Northern Rock go into receivership. The result was a bank run – the UK's first in 150 years – where depositors lined up outside the bank to withdraw all of their savings as quickly as possible, particularly since everyone else was doing the same
Re: expenses prosecutions. The battle bus was sent very deliberately to very key swing constituencies. Those constituencies won with understandably small majorities. It will not take all that many voters to come out in protest of an unfair playing field for the lucky battle-bussed incumbent to lose their seat whatever the courts decide.
Not sure what the strategy will be for Labour in one of our local swing seats that is the subject of likely prosecution(s), but local tories were making "Nannie it's not fair" squealing noises in the local press a week before the announcement of the GE.
.... also what do Lizzie Louden and Kate Perrier know that we don't? 😯
@frankconway..Since you raise the point of mental health and want links .. here's one for you.
Those people will have lost their houses and be prevented from getting a mortgage in future
The vast majority have suffered no consequences what-so-ever. Still in their houses. Those that have been foreclosed on will not have suffered a fraud conviction and "simply" have the defauit on their credit record.
@eden partly responsible for the murder of an MP is a bit strong. What by calling a Referendum ?
@kimbers we'll comment on the manifesto when we see it. BTW guaranteeing no tax rises is daft, we should be increasing taxes to fund significant increases in the NHS budget, £25-30bn pa, for example.
@eden partly responsible for the murder of an MP is a bit strong. What by calling a Referendum ?
I think the way leave/Brexies conducted their campaign was partly to blame, so yes leave/Brexies have blood on their hands
julianwilson - Member
.... also what do Lizzie Louden and Kate Perrier know that we don't?
both pro-leavers in denial about what the realities of Brexit look like ?
the farage vehicle one that is under investigation
No comment on your work of fiction re Northern Rock jambers ?
YOU and facts eh
increasing taxes to fund the NHS !!
I thought the Leavers suggested giving an extra £350m a week from eu budget ? 😆
Exactly ^^^ we should be in line for tax cuts with the £350 million a week we will be saving following Brexit. Whether it goes on the NHS seems to be moot since this wasn't a promise apparently. However, the actual saving to the taxpayer was very much implicit in the Brexit argument.
Frank, you asked for evidence, I provided evidence.
The Government admit to 61 deaths directly linked to welfare reforms, where as Callums list say 4000 could be welfare reforms being the major contributing factor, and a lot more, up to 81000 where benefits reforms were a in the mix of an already potent brew, such as your examples.
Not all are suicides, some in the government 61 deaths are the David Clapson type deaths, where sanctions lead to his electricity running out, ruining his insulin in the fridge, combined with the meagre contents edible in the now defunct fridge, a tin of fish if I recall. Found dead though keto acidosis with said tin of fish, a few teabags, and a stack of just completed CV's by his body.
His sister has started a private prosecution against Ian Duncan Smith for corporate manslaughter, and I'm proud to have contributed financially to bring about that action.
https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/david-clapson/
One of my concerns at the time - and is still a concern - is how our service based economy can provide the opportunities which grads believe should be theirs when it's clear that net jobs growth is not high enough to absorb these new entrants into the job market in the types of job many of them believe they should have (sense of entitlement?)An unwanted side effect of this policy is that it opened the door to Unis charging tuition fees; the law of unintended consequences.
It could also be argued that (some) degrees have been devalued.
A far better long term view would have been to develop and seriously fund an industrial development policy with regional organisations coordinated at a national level and staffed by industry leaders.
Retail sales continue to fall, financial services organisations are making transition arrangements for post-brexit and uk manufacturing is becoming increasingly niche.
Nice and concise... agree with you on this.
Chris £350m a week is only £18bn pa, I want to give the NHS more than that.
As for welfare reforms what's clear is that the £90bn per anum the Labour Government where spending more than they raised in taxes was totally unsustainable hence their election loss.
Coalition ? Nope, Tory landslide.
industrial development policy
Industry's key cost is labour, we are a high cost country. We have no chance of catching up to say the Germans who have dominated high value manufacturing in part as they have an artifically weak currency in the euro.
Industry's key cost is labour,
so we need a steady supply of immigrants then as our ageing population isnt gonna help with that?
90billion on welfare, and the lions share of that is paying housing benefits.
The way to control that is rent caps and affordable social housing, but how many times has Phillip Davies fillibustered debate for housing reform? Remind me again of the political allegiance of the Rentier class?
Jamba you really are the voice of doom aren't you. Please say something both positive and realistic for a change.
(I agree about the Tory landslide by the way, but landslides either way are bad for the UK)
Ulysee - I thought the bulk of the welfare state went on pensioners
Pensions, in work benefits and housing benefit, I can think of easy ways if politically unpalatable to cut the bill of the last 2, I'd say the bill for the first needs to increase...
this is why May was so desperate to hold a GE that she broke her promise not to hold one
the wheels are falling off, brexies just hope its not till after the GE
[img] 
[/img]
seems like Murdoch is turning on the Maybot's shitshow
[img] 
[/img]
Trump might be stupid but he know when he sees a bigger bit of cake.
The tories are either extremely confident (not surprisingly) and throwing out any policies they can so they don't then have to stick to them or they are underestimating the impact the changes will have.
The foreign aid one was odd as a lot of people in this country are "charity begins at home" so although we should be keeping the budget (or even increasing it) the wiser government would have slipped it through and not shouted about it knowing that a lot of people struggle with it (especially when at the same time you are not protecting pensions and taking off tax and NI locks)
The vast majority have suffered no consequences what-so-ever. Still in their houses. Those that have been foreclosed on will not have suffered a fraud conviction and "simply" have the defauit on their credit record.
Well that's good, I had no idea that not paying your mortgage had so little consequence - might knock mine on the head and save myself a few quid.
But Jambalaya, you said many times NHS should be part funded by people buying private médical insurance, like mutuelles in France.
Have you changed your mind ?
His principles are incredibly flexible. Sometimes less capable normal folk see this as him having broken his word and being a hypocrite.
He's getting older and aware of the amount of use he'll be making of the NHS soon.
Maybe
The tories are either extremely confident (not surprisingly) and throwing out any policies they can so they don't then have to stick to them or they are underestimating the impact the changes will have.
Or maybe they don't want to be in charge when Brexit really kicks in. They can throw the election, then when it all goes wrong say "that's Labours fault for not negotiating well enough".
I wonder how May will react when school teachers go on strike before the General election due to the cuts in school funding. The secondary school my boys attend are having to decide whether to increase class sizes to 45 and go to a four day week, or stop teaching Art, Languages, Drama and Technology. South Gloucester schools are being hammered in the so called Fair Funding For Schools. They'll be two Tory MP's voted out near me.
And we called George Osborne "Omnishambles"