[Closed] this Iain Duncan Smith petition, whos signed it?

The previous government cut HMRC staff numbers by 30,000. This government is cutting them by 10,000 although it is increasing staff in Enforcement by 3,000.

Throwing accusations like that back in my direction seems to be something you're quite keen on when you don't like the questions I've asked.

I'm not sure how it makes my points invalid because I haven't expressed a complete opinion on the situation. If anybody is using a lazy debating trick here, it's not me.

I'm doing something commonly known as "inferring", and helping you to see the logical conclusions

If "I dont think I said it would be easy", and that "The optimum rate for tax gain is , to say the least , highly debatable.", then by inference neither are immediate ways of increasing tax take.

Its not easy to get fit but the results are instant- in the sense you will notice if you excerecise and start a dedicated plan with daily excercise. You seem to think many words are synoyms when you debate for some reason

Anyway what do you think would be a good idea ?
pretty please with sugar on top etc 😛

"hammer the retired" (little bit of an appeal to emotion there)

Now that I've answered your questions, how about you answer the ones I asked?

You know those are fairly vague terms, what qualifies someone as ubber (sic) rich, and what qualifies as the rich/well off?

So in order to be allowed to tell you that the answer to the Middle East situation isn't to give both sides nukes, I have to tell you what the answer is?

The previous government cut HMRC staff numbers by 30,000. This government is cutting them by 10,000 although it is increasing staff in Enforcement by 3,000.

Not sure where I've argued that the previous government did a great job in tackling tax evasion/avoidance so I'm not sure what the relevance of bringing that up is - I merely said that you'd have to be very naive to believe this government is really taking it seriously.

I don't see how cutting more jobs and putting more people on the dole (jobs which have been proven to actually save money) is showing that I'm wrong. 😕

So in order to be allowed to tell you that the answer to the Middle East situation isn't to give both sides nukes, I have to tell you what the answer is?

what do you think ? [ see what i did there ] 😉

So in order to be allowed to tell you that the answer to the Middle East situation isn't to give both sides nukes, I have to tell you what the answer is?

Depressing because IDS probably spends more than £53 on wine with his lunch.

Do people really drink wine cheaper than that? The poor little peasants. There is so much injustice in the world today.

signed and shared

edited for double post - the cuts that were started 5 years ago has already been flagged above

Keep up.

And your point is...?

what do you think ?

I think that the number of rich people is small enough that you're not going to make a significant difference to the tax take no matter what the top rate of tax is. I think that it's a good idea to reduce tax avoidance/evasion, but that they're doing that anyway. I think that stopping SAS from having a bus pass and winter fuel allowance will make very little difference to the country's budget - see point 1, there just aren't enough people who you could remove such benefits from to make a noticeable difference.

Oh, and I also think you're not very good at inferences.

I don't see how cutting more jobs and putting more people on the dole (jobs which have been proven to actually save money)

So how is increasing the numbers by 3000 cutting jobs which have been proven to save money?

I merely said that you'd have to be very naive to believe this government is really taking it seriously.

Well they are bringing in general anti avoidance legislation which has never been done before, they are trying to get international co-operation to tackle it (without this they are fighting with both hands tied behind their back) they have increased staff in Enforcement, they have banned the use of service companies in the public sector. Seems to me they have done quite a lot.

It also seems to have an effect in that most tax avoidance cases are now losing at the Commissioners which implies that it is more difficult to get a scheme to work and many of the firms that used to market these services have reduced their headcount massively.

Why sic for ubber - you think there are not ubber rich people out there?

Uber (I assumed you're using the German word as a synonym for super) only has one b.

yes they are vague terms, yes we could debate what the money point is but it is not that relevant for this thread

I'd say that they are very relevant to all such debates. People generally want to reduce government spending as long as it doesn't affect them and similarly people want tax rises for the rich provided it doesn't include them. It is therefore a bit dishonest to say "tax the rich" without being specific about who these "rich" are.

We simply need to accept that some folk are rich/well off and some folk and very very rich for the point to stand. I assume you accept this even if there is debate a[and there would be] about exactly where the threshold/line is.

I absolutlely accept this, and I count myself in the well off category (purely based on income rather than assets) but the point still stands that if you say tax the rich/cut benefits to the rich you need to be a lot more open about who this actually includes so that everyone knows what they personsonally stand to gain or lose.

I merely said that you'd have to be very naive to believe this government is really taking it seriously.

Maybe you'd like to try and explain the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion to the journo, binners?

Seems to me they have done quite a lot.

By their own estimates the gap between what HMRC thinks it should get and what it actually gets is 30 billion pounds a year.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-gaps.htm#4

These proposed changes aim to save 4.2 billion over 5 years. Meanwhile the relentless media focus from the Tories is on blaming 'scroungers', who actually cost the country a fraction of the amount of lost taxes. So no I don't believe they are taking it seriously.

Have just managed to listen to what IDS says "if I had to I would". I'm impressed at how good a job everybody is doing at pointing out he doesn't have to...

they are trying to get international co-operation to tackle it (without this they are fighting with both hands tied behind their back)

The "big boys" tend to place functions in other jurisdictions which are low tax. It is impossible to legislate against this in isolation as international treaty obligations trump domestic legislation. (We already have a whole raft of legislation designed to tackle offshore avoidance). Therefore you have to get international agreement, without that you can achieve very little.

By their own estimates the gap between what HMRC thinks it should get and what it actually gets is 30 billion pounds a year.

Of which about £3 billion relates to avoidance, the rest is evasion, errors etc so it is not really the golden goose is it.

Done

Of which about £3 billion relates to avoidance, the rest is evasion, errors etc so it is not really the golden goose is it.

So we can't really do anything about it? I've got an idea, lets sack thousands of people at the HMRC, that will sort it.

Lets concentrate on the 'golden goose' of trying to convince everyone that benefit cheats caused the financial crisis instead. As soon as we've made a few of them homeless all our financial woes will be over.

I'm sure plenty would manage it for a week, but try it for two months.

The national Welfare bill is £220,000,000,000.

Of which the vast majority goes on pensions and in work benefits (often subsidising the profits of major companies who don't pay a living wage). What's your point caller?

Most people consider HMRC's estimates on lost taxes very conservative btw.

The "big boys" tend to place functions in other jurisdictions which are low tax. It is impossible to legislate against this in isolation as international treaty obligations trump domestic legislation.

It's not really that difficult. All you have to do is pass legislation along the lines of any profits made in the UK (or wherever) must be taxed at a rate equivalent to that which exists in the UK. They've done it for oil and gas production in the UK none of which can be offset or moved to be set against losses or charges from elsewhere so I fail to see why it can't be done for every business. Doesn't the US have a law along these lines?

Of which the vast majority goes on pensions and on work benefits (often subsidising the profits of major companies who don't pay a living wage). What's your point caller?

Increase wages and cull the old I'm guessing.

Lets concentrate on the 'golden goose' of trying to convince everyone that benefit cheats caused the financial crisis instead.

[img] [/img]

How is that a straw man aracer? That's exactly what the government is doing. And you seem to be falling for it by the looks of things.

Lets concentrate on the 'golden goose' of trying to convince everyone that benefit cheats caused the financial crisis instead.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Good film but I fail to see the relevance...

All you have to do is pass legislation along the lines of any profits made in the UK (or wherever) must be taxed at a rate equivalent to that which exists in the UK.

I thought the whole point was that Ambucks don't officially make that much profit in the UK. How exactly do you propose to legislate on how they do their accounting?

They've done it for oil and gas production in the UK none of which can be offset or moved to be set against losses or charges from elsewhere

You appear to have answered your own question.

That's exactly what the government is doing. And you seem to be falling for it by the looks of things.

Go on then, give us a nice direct quote or reference.

Though if it helps at all, I don't believe that benefit cheats caused the financial crisis, I don't believe we're currently discussing benefit cheats (not until you brought them up) and nor do I believe it's all that helpful considering what (who?) caused the current situation when determining what to do to solve it.

How exactly do you propose to legislate on how they do their accounting?

Wasn't that quite a bit to do with internal corporate charges? It cannot be beyond the wit of man (although it may be beyond the current batch of politicians) to devise a scheme that taxes profit before such charges are made.

....nor do I believe it's all that helpful considering what (who?) caused the current situation when determining what to do to solve it.

Ah, now I see your problem.

Try to figure out what caused the current situation, before searching for solutions.

That's exactly what I was suggesting we shouldn't do 😕

How exactly do you think it will help?

Yes I noticed. And I'm suggesting that you are wrong. To find the solution you need to understand the problem.

<I'm sure Junky will love this one>

It's rained a lot recently. Do you suggest the best way to stop my house flooding is to try and stop it raining?

Though if it helps at all, I don't believe that benefit cheats caused the financial crisis, I don't believe we're currently discussing benefit cheats (not until you brought them up) and nor do I believe it's all that helpful considering what (who?) caused the current situation when determining what to do to solve it.

My point - which would be fairly obvious if you weren't trying to be belligerent/obtuse - is that the government's relentless media campaign to demonise 'scroungers' and 'shirkers' is cynical, misleading, and deeply unpleasant. This thread is about benefits, and the government's attitude to them - pretty relevant I would have thought.

You might wish to look up the definition of a straw man btw.

How exactly do you think it will help?

Are you actually serious?

Wasn't that quite a bit to do with internal corporate charges? It cannot be beyond the wit of man (although it may be beyond the current batch of politicians) to devise a scheme that taxes profit before such charges are made.

The problem is we have surrendered our taxing right under the treaties so no matter what our legislation says it is irrelevant as it can't be applied - oil & gas has a separate regime and countries have much wider taxing rights.

I don't understand why we're stopping at Iain Duncan smith. I don't understand why MP's aren't forced to live in a big communal tenement and fed slops. If they want anything better they can pay for it out of their own pocket, or BAE's or whoever is buying their backside this week.

My point - which would be fairly obvious if you weren't trying to be belligerent/obtuse - is that the government's relentless media campaign to demonise 'scroungers' and 'shirkers' is cynical, misleading, and deeply unpleasant. This thread is about benefits, and the government's attitude to them - pretty relevant I would have thought.

What exactly has that to do with who caused the financial crisis?

You might wish to look up the definition of a straw man btw.

I think it has something to do with suggesting somebody else has a position that they don't?

The problem is we have surrendered our taxing right under the treaties so no matter what our legislation says it is irrelevant as it can't be applied

Rubbish. If you want an example of unilateral taxation, look at the one off tax on Bank bonuses a few years back (09/10).

the government's relentless media campaign to demonise 'scroungers' and 'shirkers'

Actually, I've not seen the government mention it at all

what I [i]have[/i] seen is a widespread media campaign by the opposition and their [i]common purpose[/i] compadre's to categorise perfectly reasonable reforms in the benefits system as an attack on scroungers and shirkers - and I'm willing to bet that if you go and do a search, you'll find that the only politicians categorising people on benefits with the words 'scroungers' and 'shirkers' are from the Labour party

The government has cynically and quite successfully shifted the public/media focus away from anger at the failings/greed of the banks/financial institutions that actually caused the crisis (who have largely got off scot free), to railing against the scummy scroungers on benefits bleeding us dry.

The poorest and most vulnerable in society are bearing the brunt of the crisis caused by the richest and most powerful - something you seem to be absolutely fine with.

What exactly has that to do with who caused the financial crisis?

Iblame babies an pensioners, well actually it's all down to people who unprotected vaginal intercourse and living forever, which are fun, but don't help when your country doesn't actually need people to operate.

It's rained a lot recently. Do you suggest the best way to stop my house flooding is to try and stop it raining?

What a ridiculous comment.

I see that I'm going to have to hold your hand and help you with this one.

Start off by having a quick read of this :

[url= http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-instability-of-inequality ]The Instability of Inequality[/url]

Then check out this :

[url= http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/ ]Food stamps offer best stimulus - study[/url]

Quote :

[b][i]"For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy"[/i][/b]

The most effective way to stimulate the economy is to give poor people more money, the least effective way to stimulate the economy is to give rich people more money.

You need the economy back on its feet if you want to reduce the benefit bill, but that isn't going to happen if you ignore the problems.

Although for obvious reasons the Tories don't like the idea of more money for the poor and less for the rich.

The poorest and most vulnerable in society are bearing the brunt of the crisis caused by the richest and most powerful - something you seem to absolutely fine with.

My only fault is that I'm not an idealist (well it's actually one of many, but I'm trying to gloss over the others).

Oh another glib facetious comment rather than actually engaging the point. What a surprise. 🙄

still, all this petty egotistical bickering aside..

Iain Duncan Smith really really should do this..

I must have misunderstood you ernie - I thought you were suggesting fixing the economy by punishing the bankers. Or did I misunderstand that they caused the financial crisis - was it actually the unemployed?

what I have seen is a widespread media campaign by the opposition and their common purpose compadre's to categorise perfectly reasonable reforms in the benefits system as an attack on scroungers and shirkers - and I'm willing to bet that if you go and do a search, you'll find that the only politicians categorising people on benefits with the words 'scroungers' and 'shirkers' are from the Labour party

Are you for real? That is absolute cobblers! What about George Osbornes conference speech about benefit claimants 'sleeping away a life on benefits'? That's fairly unambiguous.

This government has been engaged in a constant campaign, with the willing aid of its friends in the right-wing press, to demonise the unemployed, the sick, and the most disadvantaged people in society as undeserving of benefits. Softening everyone up for what is effectively the systematic dismantling of the welfare state

I must have misunderstood you ernie - I thought you were suggesting fixing the economy by punishing the bankers. Or did I misunderstand that they caused the financial crisis - was it actually the unemployed?

And again.

Are you for real? That is absolute cobblers! What about George Osbornes conference speech about benefit claimants 'sleeping away a life on benefits'? That's fairly unambiguous.

So you accept he didn't call anyone a scrounger, shirker or skiver then?

All words that came from the Lefty outrage bus!

I think that the number of rich people is small enough that you're not going to make a significant difference to the tax take no matter what the top rate of tax is.

I think that it's a good idea to reduce tax avoidance/evasion, but that they're doing that anyway.

I think that stopping SAS from having a bus pass and winter fuel allowance will make very little difference to the country's budget

Uber (I assumed you're using the German word as a synonym for super) only has one b.

It is therefore a bit dishonest to say "tax the rich" without being specific about who these "rich" are.

I thought the whole point was that Ambucks don't officially make that much profit in the UK. How exactly do you propose to legislate on how they do their accounting?

nor do I believe it's all that helpful considering what (who?) caused the current situation when determining what to do to solve it.

It's rained a lot recently. Do you suggest the best way to stop my house flooding is to try and stop it raining?

Well, i just signed it - 214,000 now!

So you accept he didn't call anyone a skiver then?

IDS distances himself from this language FWIW.

Its disingenous to argue that the Tories have a anything other than a lwo opinion of benefit claimants - its probably a widely held view throughout society tbh and would be equally disengenous to claim otherwise.
Why get hung up on word why not give us an example of GO priasing them if he is not ant them - should keep you occupied on google for a while

Rubbish. If you want an example of unilateral taxation, look at the one off tax on Bank bonuses a few years back (09/10).

Which we can do because we can tax resident companies or branches, we have very limited taxing rights on companies which are non resident such as most of the Amazon group. Please explain to me how you can ignore the Business Profits article in most tax treaties or indeed the Royalties one or any of the others.

No harm in the petition - if a minister claims something, then perhaps he should prove it. But, and it is a big but, the whole issue is a red herring (from political, economic and social angles) and the bile directed at IDS truly absurd.

Taking the politics first - why has the Labour party kept so quiet/abstained on so many of the issues (apart from coming up with the politically clever, if completely incorrect, notion of the bedroom tax). One because they know that the next election will focus on the simple, indeed crude, notion of which party will cut the welfare bill and which will sustain/increase it. And they know which is the vote winner of the two. Less cynically, they also combine the political aspect with an understanding of the traditions of the welfare state:

Attlee’s welfare state grew out of the British tradition that welfare had to be earned. It was rarely given unconditionally. Without a moment’s thought, that welfare state, based on contributing to a national insurance scheme that determined eligibility, was replaced by one that substitutes “need” as the entry ticket for help. If people can prove their need on grounds of low income or homelessness, help will be forthcoming. This fundamental change takes no account of human nature. Just as citizens would do their best to keep their contributory record in good spec, so, once low income becomes the gatekeeper, it literally pays to have a small enough income to qualify. The electorate recognises that some people fall by the wayside and must be helped. But most of my constituents don’t think this group should be helped more generously than those who have paid in decade after decade.

Frank Field MP

But coming to the social and economic element of this, the bile against IDS and comments such as "IDS's politics is the politics of complete ignorance and non-empathy," seem to be completely detached from reality and recent history (his very public fights with Cameron and Osbourne.) This is a bloke behind the Centre for Social Justice which states

The Centre for Social Justice aims to put social justice at the heart of British politics. Our policy development is rooted in the wisdom of those working to tackle Britain’s deepest social problems and the experience of those whose lives have been affected by poverty. Our working groups are non-partisan, comprising prominent academics, practitioners and policy makers who have expertise in the relevant fields. We consult nationally and internationally, especially with charities and social enterprises, the champions of the welfare society. In addition to policy development, the CSJ has built an alliance of poverty fighting organisations that reverse social breakdown and transform communities. We believe that the surest way the Government can reverse social breakdown and poverty is to enable such individuals, communities and voluntary groups to help themselves.

Does this really sound like a bunch of swivel-eyed right wing loonies? And what do non-partisan bodies conclude about poverty - you can quote IDS or Field - that work is the best way out of the desperation of poverty (see last line above). And yet the current welfare system is both unduly complex and creates disincentives to work - hence the weird, unholy alliances between the likes of Frank Field, Fraser Nelson and Darrel Hannen!!

IDS may be wrong, but the idea that the current reforms have no economic or social backing can best be considered with reference to Chapter 3 of:

Since this is the framework that guides his ideas and policies. Hardly the politics of ignorance.

So you accept he didn't call anyone a scrounger, shirker or skiver then?

All words that came from the Lefty outrage bus!

They're much cleverer than to actually use words like that. Thats why they are politicians. They leave their friends in the right wing press to [i]actually[/i] use those words on their behalf. While they indulge in a constant campaign of misinformation by insinuation. The end result is the same. As you are well aware. 🙄

what we dont have enough rich people to increase the tax burden and raise more money - you may not agree with it as apolicy

On the contrary - I do actually agree with it in theory, just pointing out that it won't raise the amounts we need. The rich could certainly afford to pay a lot more tax than they do, the debate is over how best to achieve that (without impacting on the economy in other ways). Where we differ is on the real world effectiveness of high rates of tax.

Not him directly but i would target all universal benefits and reduce payments to many pensioners tbh - they are no longer [ all of them anyway] amongst the most needy in our society. Not convinced by the cost claim tbh[ sure it might not save shed loads but do you think the HB change will?

We come back to Beveridge on universal benefits. I accept you have a point about the neediness of pensioners in general, but then the non-pensioner population is even less needy on average - there certainly are plenty of needy pensioners. FWIW I agree with you about the HB change - though isn't the purported reason for that to try and get people to move on from social houses which are larger than the need (a very laudable aim, just very badly executed). Again the important point of difference is on the costs involved - I agree it's not nothing, but don't believe it's enough to make a huge difference.

if you ignore history you tend to repeat it

I'm not sure how finding a pragmatic solution to the current problem rather than trying to punish somebody is ignoring history. Not attempting to change the way financial institutions are regulated would be ignoring history!

politics is the politics of complete ignorance and non-empathy

They leave their friends in the right wing press to actually use those words on their behalf.

You mean like this binners ?

[url= http://metro.co.uk/2012/04/16/david-cameron-conservatives-are-for-strivers-not-skivers-390621/ ]David Cameron: Conservatives are for strivers not skivers[/url]

IDS distances himself from this language FWIW.

Indeed. I'm certainly not about to try and defend an awful lot of the members of the government, but it's worth remembering that there are plenty of people sitting opposite the subject of this thread who are far more despicable than him.

Have a read of this THM.

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/manufacturing_ignorance_the_centre_for_social_justice_and_welfare_reform_in

Pretty scathing on the CSJ and current welfare reforms, without being overtly party political (which obviously you would never get involved in). In short they seem to be basing many of their proposals on very little/poor evidence, with a strong leaning towards apeing the American benefits system (which as we all know is a shining beacon of social justice).

Think I signed but didn't get a confirmation of such!

[s]and the bile directed at IDS truly absurd.[/s] I agree with IDS

Taking the politics first - why has the Labour party kept so quiet/abstained on so many of the issues (apart from coming up with the politically clever, if completely incorrect, notion of the bedroom tax).

One because they know that the next election will focus on the simple, indeed crude, notion of which party will cut the welfare bill

And they know which is the vote winner of the two.

Does this really sound like a bunch of swivel-eyed right wing loonies? And what do non-partisan bodies conclude about poverty - you can quote IDS or Field - that work is the best way out of the desperation of poverty

2.what is the sense in using two politicians, who have served in this government, whilst making an appeal to non partisan bodies?

FWIW I agree IDS does actually care and he does battle his govt on this and he is taking a principled stand on this for noble reasons.
he is still wrong though it is a very complicated issue to se ehow we can remove the "benefits trap"* though i would suggest a commitment to full employment is the way
it is pointless to penalise the poor and unemployed when everyone knows there are not enough jobs to go round...this makes them appear heartless to me though I accept IDS is trying to help and GO and CMD probably dont actually care very much.

Where we differ is on the real world effectiveness of high rates of tax.

We come back to Beveridge on universal benefits.

though isn't the purported reason for that to try and get people to move on from social houses which are larger than the need (a very laudable aim, just very badly executed).

You mean like this binners ?

David Cameron: Conservatives are for strivers not skivers

Precisely - Cameron never said the word skivers in the speech, but its become part of the myth...

Thats why they are politicians. They leave their friends in the right wing press to actually use those words on their behalf. While they indulge in a constant campaign of misinformation by insinuation. The end result is the same. As you are well aware.

I don't disagree one bit - but the point is that the [b]same argument goes both ways[/b], when we see politicians on the other wing playing the same game, and their own pet columnists like Polly indulging in their own campaign that insinuates that 'the tories are saying everyone on benefits are scum' and sets forth myths like the 'bedroom tax' where even people on this site are left in confusion over who it will affect (see the earlier post about dalesriders mum, who as a pensioner won't be affected!)

Yes and I am not a fan as I think they should be there for the needy and not for all

Well you'll excuse me for thinking he might be more knowledgeable about this than you. Does that make me a swivel-eyed right wing loonie? 😉

its not like i can get NHS treatemnt if I am not ill just because I have paid in this year and it makes that much sense tbh.

Given SAS can get treatment on the NHS, that is an exceedingly poor analogy!

We're in agreement on one thing then. Polly bloody Toynbee. The view of Britain as seen from Tuscany 🙄

I wish I'd lived in the country she was describing when Nu Labour were in power. It sounds brilliant! Didn't bear much resemblance to the one I saw around me at the time, mind.

We're in agreement on one thing then. Polly bloody Toynbee.

...and I thought it was just swivel-eyed right wing loonies like me who didn't think much of her (in case ernie asks again, no I don't read what she writes if I can help, but sometimes follow links which didn't come with a warning).

in case ernie asks again, no I don't read what she writes if I can help, but sometimes follow links which didn't come with a warning

Well I'm obviously more successful than you in not reading stuff I don't want to waste my time reading.
I have never read an article by Polly Toynbee beyond perhaps the title and and the first few sentences.

Well you'll excuse me for thinking he might be more knowledgeable about this than you. Does that make me a swivel-eyed right wing loonie?

Given SAS can get treatment on the NHS, that is an exceedingly poor analogy!

Oh - so now you think SAS needs to get treatment on the NHS? Presumably he doesn't heat his house in winter (though I'll give you that he probably doesn't ever travel on a bus, so giving him a bus pass would be a huge waste of public money)?

i dont think the 40 years dead person is that good an expert in terms of the current usefulness of said benefits

So can you explain to me how the fundamental reasons behind his views have changed?

I have never read an article by Polly Toynbee

That suggests a remarkable level of prejudice. Is there anybody else you've decided to avoid reading the opinions of despite having never read anything they've written?

Is there anybody else you've decided to avoid reading the opinions of despite having never read anything they've written?

Loads of people. I can't read everything so I become selective in what I read. Nothing in the title or first few sentences of Polly Toynbee's articles has ever grabbed my attention.

Do you think I should force myself to read her articles then ? What about all the other people who publish articles that I don't read - should I be reading them as well ?

Or is there something special about Polly Toynbee ?

so now you think SAS needs to get treatment on the NHS?

Presumably he doesn't heat his house in winter

So can you explain to me how the fundamental reasons behind his views have changed?

so you support a flat reate charge then just like he did etc
Many folk still support universal beneifts but i am not one of them - if you want to ask me why I can explain my view again for you if you wish

Or is there something special about Polly Toynbee ?

Not really, no.

That's a relief. I was worried from aracer's comments that by not reading Polly Toynbee's articles I might be missing out on something important.