There is a better way campaign

[magpie1892]

Look out! The Kraken has gone into bold type. As this makes the points so much more impactful.

The 'pick and choose' statistics, they remain the same however...

[One Day Soon]

Look out! The Kraken has gone into bold type. As this makes the points so much more impactful.

The 'pick and choose' statistics, they remain the same however...

You're really not worth it Tory Boy.

I will however ask you for the third time on this thread: what did you mean when you accused the last Labour government of "forcing multiculturalism on a people without consent"? I expect the silence will again be deafening.

[Mibbes Aye]

I suspect you didn't read my post very well, if at all, because I gave you a fairly big list of reasons why I thought it was rhetoric.

I'm not going to defend everything that the government is doing however. Just as I find it hard to believe that someone can criticise everything that they're doing if they are being objective.

It isn't rhetoric to say that the likes of the old and the poor are being hit the hardest - that's been borne out of the analyses of the budget and the CSR.

And you don't even have to be an amateur economist to see that if you slash council budgets, then there's bound to be a huge impact on their biggest area of spend - the elderly and the disabled.

That's not rhetoric. Rhetoric would be saying "We are all in this together" or "Those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest burden"

Actually, in my book, that wouldn't be rhetoric. That would just be lying.

Regardless of one's views on the level the cuts need to go to, there's a big, fat lie at the heart of this, plain for all to see.

I don't know you Beefster, but I genuinely don't believe you're comfortable with that lie. This isn't the usual platitudes and spin of the political game. This is about the weakest people in our street, our community, our society, the pensioner next door, the disabled woman round the corner.

Cameron and Clegg said they would be the priority, that they would be protected. And then they did exactly the opposite.......

[magpie1892]

I'm not worth it. So don't take the bait.

I did, before deleting. Still I feel a little unclean.

(but it's more-or-less OK, cos I'm in bold type)

[magpie1892]

It isn't rhetoric to say that the likes of the old and the poor are being hit the hardest - that's been borne out of the analyses of the budget and the CSR.

And you don't even have to be an amateur economist to see that if you slash council budgets, then there's bound to be a huge impact on their biggest area of spend - the elderly and the disabled.

That's not rhetoric. Rhetoric would be saying "We are all in this together" or "Those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest burden"

Actually, in my book, that wouldn't be rhetoric. That would just be lying.

Regardless of one's views on the level the cuts need to go to, there's a big, fat lie at the heart of this, plain for all to see.

I don't know you Beefster, but I genuinely don't believe you're comfortable with that lie. This isn't the usual platitudes and spin of the political game. This is about the weakest people in our street, our community, our society, the pensioner next door, the disabled woman round the corner.

Cameron and Clegg said they would be the priority, that they would be protected. And then they did exactly the opposite.......

A majority of labour voters support the housing benefit cap. They would do, of course, seeing as such a move was in the labour 2010 election manifesto (author: Ed Miliband).

I'm still not seeing much more than Tory-hating rhetoric, despite the fact that we have a coalition. Hate the Tories by all means, it means nothing to this 'Tory boy' (!) but the serious alternative to the evil Tory cuts has yet to be outlined by labour.

Of course, the shallower the cuts now, the greater the continuing interest payments and the less money available on the long run for public spending.

Give some evidence about the tyranny being wrought on the 'poor and the old', not supposition. The anti-coalition voices are not augmented when private school PC socialists align housing benefit caps with the murder of six million Jews.

[bighairyfaeleith]

A majority of labour voters support the housing benefit cap. They would do, of course, seeing as such a move was in the labour 2010 election manifesto (author: Ed Miliband).

I'm still not seeing much more than Tory-hating rhetoric, despite the fact that we have a coalition. Hate the Tories by all means, it means nothing to this 'Tory boy' (!) but the serious alternative to the evil Tory cuts has yet to be outlined by labour.

Of course, the shallower the cuts now, the greater the continuing interest payments and the less money available on the long run for public spending.

Give some evidence about the tyranny being wrought on the 'poor and the old', not supposition. The anti-coalition voices are not augmented when private school PC socialists align housing benefit caps with the murder of six million Jews.

TBF I think you are choosing not to see anything more than tory hating rhetoric, The this thread has lots of valid concerns and points about the current governments plans that remain unanswered (more likely ignored on purpose), and you continue to say that no one is raising any points.

[Leicester Fan]

Which years would you prefer? These were just the most recently available data. The facts may not fit preconceptions about 'johnny foreigner' coming and stealing our jobs so which years would you prefer to look at?

You know very well that there was a massive increase in population under Labour most of which came from immigration. Choosing 2009 when there was ;

(a)a huge recession here making it less attractive to come here.

(b) An election looming making Labour tighten up the rules because it was costing popularity/votes.

It's nothing to do with 'Jonny Foreigner' ,I've nothing against immigrants themselves and I don't blame them for wanting to improve their lives. It's just when you flood the market huge swathes of cheap labour wages drop.Very nice for the middle classes who get cheap plumbers/nannies and gardeners etc but for the lower paid, the people Labour claim to care about, things get worse. Burying your head in the sand and accusing critics of racism doesn't change that.

[Beefster]

It isn't rhetoric to say that the likes of the old and the poor are being hit the hardest - that's been borne out of the analyses of the budget and the CSR.

And you don't even have to be an amateur economist to see that if you slash council budgets, then there's bound to be a huge impact on their biggest area of spend - the elderly and the disabled.

That's not rhetoric. Rhetoric would be saying "We are all in this together" or "Those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest burden"

Actually, in my book, that wouldn't be rhetoric. That would just be lying.

Regardless of one's views on the level the cuts need to go to, there's a big, fat lie at the heart of this, plain for all to see.

I don't know you Beefster, but I genuinely don't believe you're comfortable with that lie. This isn't the usual platitudes and spin of the political game. This is about the weakest people in our street, our community, our society, the pensioner next door, the disabled woman round the corner.

Cameron and Clegg said they would be the priority, that they would be protected. And then they did exactly the opposite.......

As I pointed out in my post, there are things being done for the weak/poor/children/whoever. Tax cuts, increase in education for poorer kids, protected benefits, exemptions from pay freezes, NHS spending and many more. That doesn't sound like a government targeting a certain group.

I'm not here to defend everything the government does but they'll be criticised irrespective of what they do. They'll get some things right and they'll get some things wrong.

[One Day Soon]

You know very well that there was a massive increase in population under Labour most of which came from immigration.

Actually I didn't know that. What is your source because I couldn't find anything giving annual figures between 1997 and 2010? It would be interesting to see the increase in numbers and the percentage increase as well as what percentage came from EU and non-EU countries.

Choosing 2009 when there was ;

(a)a huge recession here making it less attractive to come here.

Fair enough but again which year do you want to use - happy to debate any other year or the perod of Labour govt if you can find figures.

(b) An election looming making Labour tighten up the rules because it was costing popularity/votes.

I'm not sure that really holds water. There may have been an increase in rhetoric but I don't think there was a significant change on the ground. But as I have said I'm happy debate whatever other concrete figures you can source.

It's nothing to do with 'Jonny Foreigner' ,I've nothing against immigrants themselves and I don't blame them for wanting to improve their lives. It's just when you flood the market huge swathes of cheap labour wages drop.Very nice for the middle classes who get cheap plumbers/nannies and gardeners etc but for the lower paid, the people Labour claim to care about, things get worse. Burying your head in the sand and accusing critics of racism doesn't change that.

Well precisely, which is why you should be opposed to the high unemployment that's coming if you are going to be consistent. The 'immigrants stole my job' argument just seems to me to be a convenient Tory tabloid story which doesn't stand up to close examination when you test the facts and figures.

I haven't buried my head in the sand and I haven't accused you of racism either. I have produced some convincing figures. You show me figures to contradict them.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Look out! The Kraken has gone into bold type. As this makes the points so much more impactful.

The 'pick and choose' statistics, they remain the same however...


I'm not worth it. So don't take the bait.

I did, before deleting. Still I feel a little unclean.

(but it's more-or-less OK, cos I'm in bold type)


Just nasty. You will love again, get over it.

[magpie1892]

Just nasty. You will love again, get over it.

Fingers crossed.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Fingers crossed.

:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

That's the thing SiMar - it doesn't have to be on the scale required. As the thread title says.......:wink:

Ohh c'mon.

Where's your response the IFS figures...it was you talking about rhetoric but yet when yours is exposed you just ignore it?

And are you seriously saying there doesn't need to be a significant retractment of UK government spending when the decifit was over 11% last year or suggesting that at some point it might be a smart move to actually run a surplus to allow a reduction in overall borrowing?

[Mibbes Aye]

Ohh c'mon.

Where's your response the IFS figures...it was you talking about rhetoric but yet when yours is exposed you just ignore it?

And are you seriously saying there doesn't need to be a significant retractment of UK government spending when the decifit was over 11% last year or suggesting that at some point it might be a smart move to actually run a surplus to allow a reduction in overall borrowing?

The IFS analysis of the decisions made by the Tories in the budget and the CSR agrees with the Treasury analysis - that it is regressive and thus imposes a greater burden on the poor.

The only way that the Tories can even try to show their decisions in a mitigating light is by lumping them in with Gordon Brown's decision to raise the higher rate of tax to 50p. Who would have thought, the Tories relying on policies introduced by Gordon Brown in order to try and get out of the corner they've painted themselves into with their lies :greengrin

What doesn't seem to have been picked up on here is the latest utter shambles - the proposed changes to child benefit.

I didn't quite catch the story properly so maybe someone can confirm?

Is it really true that the Government is going to write to four million higher rate taxpayers asking them if their partner receives child benefit, in order to stop it?? And is it the case that as the recipient of the letter is in no way entitled to have that information about their partner, they won't have to answer?

This policy will be dropped like a stone, that's my guess anyway. What a mess :bitchy:

[RyeSloan]

The IFS analysis of the decisions made by the Tories in the budget and the CSR agrees with the Treasury analysis - that it is regressive and thus imposes a greater burden on the poor.

The only way that the Tories can even try to show their decisions in a mitigating light is by lumping them in with Gordon Brown's decision to raise the higher rate of tax to 50p. Who would have thought, the Tories relying on policies introduced by Gordon Brown in order to try and get out of the corner they've painted themselves into with their lies :greengrin

What doesn't seem to have been picked up on here is the latest utter shambles - the proposed changes to child benefit.

I didn't quite catch the story properly so maybe someone can confirm?

Is it really true that the Government is going to write to four million higher rate taxpayers asking them if their partner receives child benefit, in order to stop it?? And is it the case that as the recipient of the letter is in no way entitled to have that information about their partner, they won't have to answer?

This policy will be dropped like a stone, that's my guess anyway. What a mess :bitchy:

I agree the child tax benefit change is in a mess, I also happen to agree with the sentiment though...why should such a benefit be universal and do households earning 40k plus need government support for their child.

I asked you a specific question regarding the IFS analysis, I see you have failed to give a response beyond the general and have then opted to use the somewhat bizzare argument that because the 50% tax was a 'Labour idea' it can't really be considered in a discussion on the figures or actions (despite no repeal of this idea?)....is that because the IFS themsleves state that when all measures are looked at the richest tenth of the population lose most?

As others have sated I'm in no way an apologist for the Coalition nor a supporter of all of their ideas or actions but I firmly believe that there needs to be considerable actions taken to reduce the deficit (you failed to answer my last question on why you appear to think there is no need for significant action) and I can see little option but to cut across the board.

[Mibbes Aye]

I agree the child tax benefit change is in a mess, I also happen to agree with the sentiment though...why should such a benefit be universal and do households earning 40k plus need government support for their child.

I asked you a specific question regarding the IFS analysis, I see you have failed to give a response beyond the general and have then opted to use the somewhat bizzare argument that because the 50% tax was a 'Labour idea' it can't really be considered in a discussion on the figures or actions (despite no repeal of this idea?)....is that because the IFS themsleves state that when all measures are looked at the richest tenth of the population lose most?

As others have sated I'm in no way an apologist for the Coalition nor a supporter of all of their ideas or actions but I firmly believe that there needs to be considerable actions taken to reduce the deficit (you failed to answer my last question on why you appear to think there is no need for significant action) and I can see little option but to cut across the board.

That's simply not true SiMar.

The IFS have stated clearly that when you take all the Tory measures on tax and welfare, the impact over the next few years is that the poorest 10% lose more of their net income than any other group. In fact the poorest 20% lose more than the richest 10%, and of course relatively speaking, can less afford to.

UB40 sang about being part of the "One in Ten", a song that illustrated the fractures in our society under Thatcherism.

Under Cameron it looks like it's "One in Five" and counting :wink:

[RyeSloan]

That's simply not true SiMar.

The IFS have stated clearly that when you take all the Tory measures on tax and welfare, the impact over the next few years is that the poorest 10% lose more of their net income than any other group. In fact the poorest 20% lose more than the richest 10%, and of course relatively speaking, can less afford to.

UB40 sang about being part of the "One in Ten", a song that illustrated the fractures in our society under Thatcherism.

Under Cameron it looks like it's "One in Five" and counting :wink:

Really, why then is one of the IFS's key conclusions in their analysis of their distributional analysis of tax and benefit changes is "Overall the richest tenth lose most"??

[Mibbes Aye]

Really, why then is one of the IFS's key conclusions in their analysis of their distributional analysis of tax and benefit changes is "Overall the richest tenth lose most"??

It's not.

See here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/01/budget-deficit-public-sector-cuts).

If you can be bothered, dig out the powerpoint and look for the distributional impact of the tax and benefit cuts to 2014-15.

Clearly shows who suffers most.

As if anyone really had any doubts :rolleyes:

[One Day Soon]

This is a disgraceful development and the Tories should be ashamed of themselves.

Unless there are very clear command and control systems it will be impossible to be able to guarantee French service personnel the right to an early surrender in any conflict.

[Betty Boop]

This is a disgraceful development and the Tories should be ashamed of themselves.

Unless there are very clear command and control systems it will be impossible to be able to guarantee French service personnel the right to an early surrender in any conflict.

What would happen if the French were against going to war, as was the case in Iraq ?

[easty]

Groundskeeper Wullie will be raging we're joining with those cheese eating surrender monkeys!

[easty]

What would happen if the French were against going to war, as was the case in Iraq ?

I believe it will be tic-tac to decide between Cameron and Sarkozy and he's just got wee feet so we'd probably always win.

[Peevemor]

I believe it will be tic-tac to decide between Cameron and Sarkozy and he's just got wee feet so we'd probably always win.

:greengrin

I believe that Sarko has aready enlisted the aid of the Italian army to give the French troops moonwalking lessons.

[RyeSloan]

It's not.

See here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/01/budget-deficit-public-sector-cuts).

If you can be bothered, dig out the powerpoint and look for the distributional impact of the tax and benefit cuts to 2014-15.

Clearly shows who suffers most.

As if anyone really had any doubts :rolleyes:

I don't see how you can say "it's not" and "if I can be bothered" when I have referenced the exact IFS powerpoint presentation that I have quoted from. :confused:

It clearly concludes that (largely due to the 50p tax rise) the top 10% lose most.

Seems little point in continuing this conversation if you refute something doesn't exist and insinuate that I haven't looked a the presentations when I have clearly referenced two of them in this thread. The first one you ignored and the second one you deny says what it quite clearly says in one of its conclusions.

[ancienthibby]

Off topic but as much as I dislike Harriet Hartman I did laugh at the Ginger rodent comment about danger Alexander :)

I suspect the implications of this will be unveiled in the Scottish election next May.

Aside from being crass and crude, the comment leaves theweeinvisiblegreyman with not a single party to talk to about a coalition - if and it's a big if - Labour win next May's election!!:devil:

[magpie1892]

This is a disgraceful development and the Tories should be ashamed of themselves.

Unless there are very clear command and control systems it will be impossible to be able to guarantee French service personnel the right to an early surrender in any conflict.

That's not bad...

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't have a problem with the bulk of what has been announced regarding the treaty with france, in fact some of it is quite sensible.

However I would like to read more on the details of the nuclear parts, anyone found all the details anywhere yet?

[Betty Boop]

I don't have a problem with the bulk of what has been announced regarding the treaty with france, in fact some of it is quite sensible.

However I would like to read more on the details of the nuclear parts, anyone found all the details anywhere yet?

They UK and France are to set up a centre for the development and testing of nuclear warheads. I wonder where the testing will be done ? Anyway this sounds like the beginning of an EU defence force.

[CropleyWasGod]

They UK and France are to set up a centre for the development and testing of nuclear warheads. I wonder where the testing will be done ? Anyway this sounds like the beginning of an EU defence force.

I have been saying for some time that, with the advent of a more integrated Europe, it doesn't make economic or military sense for the UK and France to be the only nuclear powers. I'm not in favour of having a nuclear deterrent.... but that's for another thread.... but if there is going to be one it should be Europe-wide, with Europe sharing in the costs and benefits.

The testing will be in Fife. :greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

I have been saying for some time that, with the advent of a more integrated Europe, it doesn't make economic or military sense for the UK and France to be the only nuclear powers. I'm not in favour of having a nuclear deterrent.... but that's for another thread.... but if there is going to be one it should be Europe-wide, with Europe sharing in the costs and benefits.

The testing will be in Fife. :greengrin

Should glasgow not be a potential testing ground???:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Should glasgow not be a potential testing ground???:greengrin

Nah... you couldn't tell if the results were positive.

[Betty Boop]

The Head of the Olympic delivery committee is earning £250,000 for a 3 day week. Something wrong there surely ! :grr:

[easty]

The Head of the Olympic delivery committee is earning £250,000 for a 3 day week. Something wrong there surely ! :grr:

Maybe he's out training the other days of the week? Earning that much I'd expect him to win us a couple of gold medals himself!

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't see how you can say "it's not" and "if I can be bothered" when I have referenced the exact IFS powerpoint presentation that I have quoted from. :confused:

It clearly concludes that (largely due to the 50p tax rise) the top 10% lose most.

Seems little point in continuing this conversation if you refute something doesn't exist and insinuate that I haven't looked a the presentations when I have clearly referenced two of them in this thread. The first one you ignored and the second one you deny says what it quite clearly says in one of its conclusions.

:faf:

As I've pointed out, the head of the IFS has reiterated what the IFS have been saying. Tory policies hit the weakest hardest. And they've shown that.

O'Dea's work doesn't refute that. Browne's work supports it.

You seem to be saying Emmerson's wrong.

So who to trust?

Straight question SiMar, doesn't the head of the IFS have a better idea than you about what the IFS are claiming?

[RyeSloan]

:faf:

As I've pointed out, the head of the IFS has reiterated what the IFS have been saying. Tory policies hit the weakest hardest. And they've shown that.

O'Dea's work doesn't refute that. Browne's work supports it.

You seem to be saying Emmerson's wrong.

So who to trust?

Straight question SiMar, doesn't the head of the IFS have a better idea than you about what the IFS are claiming?

Laugh all you want doesn't take away the fact that Browne's presentation has a conclusion that states:

"Overall richest tenth lose most, but because of Labour's tax rises"

You said it didn't, it is clear to all that it does.

Emmerson can say what he wants, doesn't take away the fact that one of Browne's conclusion is as I have stated, repeated in O'Deas presentation.

ODeas' presentation has a number of conclusions including:


Valuing public spending is hard to do precisely

Valuing the change in public spending is even harder

Analysis is (nessecarily?) incomplete so precludes conclusive statement on precise level of progressivity of entire fiscal consolidation.


So although the IFS does suggest that the changes may well be regressive they themselves state that it is tough to be sure and even tougher to model. Furthermore a lot of their assements do not put the poorest as the biggest losers every time...I have no problems with saying that it does in certain assesments and when taking certain assumptions but as I have already indicated this is quite a distance from your idealogical attack on the fibre of our society.

This time though I do seriously have nothing left to say on this subject, I've made my points, backed up by direct quotes and assesments by the IFS. Doubt that will stop you laughing and denying that some of them even exist but hey that's life I suppose.

[One Day Soon]

So, why does David Cameron need a personal photographer and personal film maker paid for by public money at £35,000 each a year? Particularly when "we are all in it together" in these vast budget cuts.

If "we are all in it together" does that mean that we will all shortly be having our own personal photographers and film makers sent to our homes?

Without having to think about it too hard I'd prefer to bin these two and employ some cops, nurses or teachers instead.

[Mibbes Aye]

So, why does David Cameron need a personal photographer and personal film maker paid for by public money at £35,000 each a year? Particularly when "we are all in it together" in these vast budget cuts.

If "we are all in it together" does that mean that we will all shortly be having our own personal photographers and film makers sent to our homes?

Without having to think about it too hard I'd prefer to bin these two and employ some cops, nurses or teachers instead.

I'm astonished that when the Tories are talking about sacking half a million public sector workers - nurses, police, ambulance drivers, bin men etc - he's found a well-paid civil service job for the bloke who took his family photos.

Enough's enough.

There is a better way.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm astonished that when the Tories are talking about sacking half a million public sector workers - nurses, police, ambulance drivers, bin men etc - he's found a well-paid civil service job for the bloke who took his family photos.

Enough's enough.

There is a better way.

It's quite incredible, if you made it up no one would believe you. Loved camerons response in parliament, apparently it's not a question he needs to answer!!

[Dashing Bob S]

It's pretty sad that we're still rehashing the old spend versus cut nonsense. I really think that the structural problems of the global economy, with particular regard to the west, have gone way beyond this.

Given the situation in the UK, I believe our economic prospects really depend on what happens in the US economy rather than what we do.

I believe that Obama's rescue package saved America from a major, long-standing depression. But I also feel that such a package will not work if a further recession occurs within the next four years.

[Beefster]

So, why does David Cameron need a personal photographer and personal film maker paid for by public money at £35,000 each a year? Particularly when "we are all in it together" in these vast budget cuts.

If "we are all in it together" does that mean that we will all shortly be having our own personal photographers and film makers sent to our homes?

Without having to think about it too hard I'd prefer to bin these two and employ some cops, nurses or teachers instead.


I'm astonished that when the Tories are talking about sacking half a million public sector workers - nurses, police, ambulance drivers, bin men etc - he's found a well-paid civil service job for the bloke who took his family photos.

Enough's enough.

There is a better way.

I read in the Guardian that it cost the last government more than £70k pa to hire freelance photographers and videographers or pay to use their photos. If that's true, employing them on contracts is saving money. If not, Number 10 have been idiots.

[One Day Soon]

I read in the Guardian that it cost the last government more than £70k pa to hire freelance photographers and videographers or pay to use their photos. If that's true, employing them on contracts is saving money. If not, Number 10 have been idiots.


Let us assume for the moment that this is true. Why does the Government - in this case David Cameron - need to use photographers and videographers at all? Purely to sell himself and his government back to us, using public money to pay for the priviledge of our being told how good, valuable etc our govt and Prime Minister are.

You can cut it any way you like, this is two individuals being employed by the Tories at £35,000 each to take pictures and film which will be used to make the government look good. And its not as though the news outlets won't feature enough images of these people for us to know who they are.

Now what's better value, them doing that or some cops, teachers or nurses holding on to their jobs and serving the public by doing something useful?

"We're all in it together"? Bollocks we are. To paraphrase George Orwell - We're all in it together, but some of us are more in it than others.

[magpie1892]

I read in the Guardian that it cost the last government more than £70k pa to hire freelance photographers and videographers or pay to use their photos. If that's true, employing them on contracts is saving money. If not, Number 10 have been idiots.

That sounds about right. The coalition has said it will halve the GBP531million the Labour government spent on marketing, communications and advertising the wonders of its administration in 2009/10.

The GBP74million to be spent on advertising the anti-obesity 'Change4Life' programme will not be provided by the taxpayer as planned by Labour. According to Marketing Week magazine this cash will now come from the food and drink industry. Dammit, those coalitioners, sorry, Tories, are evil and no mistake.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Let us assume for the moment that this is true. Why does the Government - in this case David Cameron - need to use photographers and videographers at all? Purely to sell himself and his government back to us, using public money to pay for the priviledge of our being told how good, valuable etc our govt and Prime Minister are.

You can cut it any way you like, this is two individuals being employed by the Tories at £35,000 each to take pictures and film which will be used to make the government look good. And its not as though the news outlets won't feature enough images of these people for us to know who they are.

Now what's better value, them doing that or some cops, teachers or nurses holding on to their jobs and serving the public by doing something useful?

"We're all in it together"? Bollocks we are. To paraphrase George Orwell - We're all in it together, but some of us are more in it than others.

If everyone jumps in the sea from a sinking ship (say The Titanic, or Belgrano) everyone is in the sea together. Whether or not they are wearing a life jacket.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That sounds about right. The coalition has said it will halve the GBP531million the Labour government spent on marketing, communications and advertising the wonders of its administration in 2009/10.

The GBP74million to be spent on advertising the anti-obesity 'Change4Life' programme will not be provided by the taxpayer as planned by Labour. According to Marketing Week magazine this cash will now come from the food and drink industry. Dammit, those coalitioners, sorry, Tories, are evil and no mistake.

Who, of course, have every incentive to reduce obesity, and no incentive to advertise their products.

[magpie1892]

Who, of course, have every incentive to reduce obesity, and no incentive to advertise their products.

Not sure what point you're making?

[One Day Soon]

Don't you love the way that when an inconvenient thing like a fact comes along and shows up this bunch of coalition charlatans for what they really are, a bunch of lying hypocrites, the deafening answer from the Tory boy supporters is to point to the previous administration with a "well its not half as bad as what they did" response?

Here are the questions which remain unanswered. Why does the taxpayer need a personal photographer and videographer for David Cameron at all? Why is it better to employ these two characters rather than cops, teachers or nurses?

[One Day Soon]

If everyone jumps in the sea from a sinking ship (say The Titanic, or Belgrano) everyone is in the sea together. Whether or not they are wearing a life jacket.

Of course in the case of the Titanic some people got lifeboats and some didn't. Some people were locked in steerage and some weren't.

Wheareas in the current circumstances .......oh wait a minute. Best to stick to the mantra, "We're all in it together"*.


*(but some animals are more equal than others)

[Phil D. Rolls]

Not sure what point you're making?

I don't trust them to do it, whereas I do trust government action on the issue (although New Labour were something of a joke). I think that it is a bit of a joke asking the likes of Walkers to ask people to eat less crisps. It's rather like self-regulation in the booze industry, "drink responsibly, but we're heavily discounting our sales to Tesco et alia".

[magpie1892]

I don't trust them to do it, whereas I do trust government action on the issue (although New Labour were something of a joke). I think that it is a bit of a joke asking the likes of Walkers to ask people to eat less crisps. It's rather like self-regulation in the booze industry, "drink responsibly, but we're heavily discounting our sales to Tesco et alia".

Ah, got you. Well, I suppose they can be forced to comply. We shall see.

The Cameron situation doesn't look good - I don't think he was well-advised there - but if the coalition are putting a huge dent in the distended New Labour propaganda budget, it's hard to see that as anything other than a positive. Some of the advertising spending on Gordo's watch was questionable to say the least, Stalinist gaybag that he was/is.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ah, got you. Well, I suppose they can be forced to comply. We shall see.

The Cameron situation doesn't look good - I don't think he was well-advised there - but if the coalition are putting a huge dent in the distended New Labour propaganda budget, it's hard to see that as anything other than a positive. Some of the advertising spending on Gordo's watch was questionable to say the least, Stalinist gaybag that he was/is.

Surely monitoring their compliance is as big an effort as doing it themself?

Personally, I don't think getting a photographer to follow him around is that big a deal.

[lucky]

Ah, got you. Well, I suppose they can be forced to comply. We shall see.

The Cameron situation doesn't look good - I don't think he was well-advised there - but if the coalition are putting a huge dent in the distended New Labour propaganda budget, it's hard to see that as anything other than a positive. Some of the advertising spending on Gordo's watch was questionable to say the least, Stalinist gaybag that he was/is.

Just drop in thread occasionally as it drifted from the original post but through out you have spouted some rubbish but the above post says more about you than New Labour or Gordon Brown

[magpie1892]

Just drop in thread occasionally as it drifted from the original post but through out you have spouted some rubbish but the above post says more about you than New Labour or Gordon Brown

That may be, but your comments will struggle for relevance/interest unless the thread is entitled: 'magpie1892 - spouter of rubbish?' or similar.

[magpie1892]

Surely monitoring their compliance is as big an effort as doing it themself?

Personally, I don't think getting a photographer to follow him around is that big a deal.

Yeah, I guess. For me, the most important thing is that the taxpayer is having the burden of paying for government advertising lessened significantly. A great place to cut and plenty of scope to do so. The usual suspects can't sell this 'Tory' cut as attacking the old/young/weak/ill/unemployed etc. so we have an alternative and equally unconvincing argument thrown up saying that the money would 'surely' be better spent looking after the kittens of illegal immigrants or something.

We have a coalition, but these are 'evil Tory cuts' every single time, regardless of the area where a saving is sought. The communications budget being a case in point here. As I work in communications perhaps I should take this as a personal slight, that the evil Tories are attacking me and there is indeed 'a better way', or I could just look at the deficit, the interest paid on the debt then grow up and try and offer something more constructive than low-grade and irrelevant personal attacks on my fellow posters.

I agree that it's not a big deal having a photographer following Cameron around at GBP35,000 a year (for London, that's cheap) but I do question the timing of such a move. It wasn't sold well but 35k to GBP531million puts it into perspective.

[bighairyfaeleith]

That may be, but your comments will struggle for relevance/interest unless the thread is entitled: 'magpie1892 - spouter of rubbish?' or similar.

No they won't, thats just more pish:agree:

[bighairyfaeleith]

That sounds about right. The coalition has said it will halve the GBP531million the Labour government spent on marketing, communications and advertising the wonders of its administration in 2009/10.

The GBP74million to be spent on advertising the anti-obesity 'Change4Life' programme will not be provided by the taxpayer as planned by Labour. According to Marketing Week magazine this cash will now come from the food and drink industry. Dammit, those coalitioners, sorry, Tories, are evil and no mistake.

That will almost cover the extra money davey has agreed to give europe then:rolleyes:

[magpie1892]

That will almost cover the extra money davey has agreed to give europe then:rolleyes:

Indeed. That's both main parties promised us a referendum on the Lisbon treaty now, and lied again.

[One Day Soon]

Ah, got you. Well, I suppose they can be forced to comply. We shall see.

The Cameron situation doesn't look good - I don't think he was well-advised there - but if the coalition are putting a huge dent in the distended New Labour propaganda budget, it's hard to see that as anything other than a positive. Some of the advertising spending on Gordo's watch was questionable to say the least, Stalinist gaybag that he was/is.

Doesn't this strike you as pretty offensive and intolerant ? Putting this alongside your still unexplained earlier reference to enforced multi-culturalism paints a really interesting picture of the beliefs you seem to bring to the table.

And you work in communications?!!?

[magpie1892]

:fishin: I knew it wouldn't take too long to land the big one.

[magpie1892]

No they won't, thats just more pish:agree:

You think?! No-one cares what lucky thinks of me, least of all myself.

[One Day Soon]

:fishin: I knew it wouldn't take too long to land the big one.

I have done you an injustice. I thought you were just a Tory. What's next, a bit of 'Oswald Mosley was just misunderstood' and some working class white pride?

[RyeSloan]

That will almost cover the extra money davey has agreed to give europe then:rolleyes:

Which was of course around about half of what the Labour government had previously agreed to pay Europe....

[magpie1892]

Which was of course around about half of what the Labour government had previously agreed to pay Europe....

*sigh*

Have you not learned anything yet? Exposing the kleptocratic incompetence of the Labour Stasi will only get you smeared as a 'tory boy' or, latterly, a nazi.

Still, it's all good knockabout fun, laughing at the Stalinist choob as he hands down his latest pronouncement while using a crusty copy of 'Socialist Worker' to wipe the semen off his keyboard. One imagines that 'Biko' by Peter Gabriel or 'Free Nelson Mandela' by the Special AKA is playing on an Amstrad HiFi in the bedsit as he types.

'Coulda' been a great dictator,
given half a chance.
But they treated him like a traitor,
so 'ee went to live in France.'

Astonishing, that over 30 years later, some people think that the 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' skit was not comedy, rather a legitimate political argument.

One day, everyone will see the satire. One day soon.

[Betty Boop]

*sigh*

Have you not learned anything yet? Exposing the kleptocratic incompetence of the Labour Stasi will only get you smeared as a 'tory boy' or, latterly, a nazi.

Still, it's all good knockabout fun, laughing at the Stalinist choob as he hands down his latest pronouncement while using a crusty copy of 'Socialist Worker' to wipe the semen off his keyboard. One imagines that 'Biko' by Peter Gabriel or 'Free Nelson Mandela' by the Special AKA is playing on an Amstrad HiFi in the bedsit as he types.

'Coulda' been a great dictator,
given half a chance.
But they treated him like a traitor,
so 'ee went to live in France.'

Astonishing, that over 30 years later, some people think that the 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' skit was not comedy, rather a legitimate political argument.

One day, everyone will see the satire. One day soon.

Do you really need to be so insulting ?

[magpie1892]

Do you really need to be so insulting ?

No.

But I'm only really following several leads. It's the politics of the playground: 'he started it!' and started it with a slight that was ignorant, offensive and noticed/commented on by others.

Can't take it, then don't dish it.

Makes me feel kinda cheap but if you're clearly out of your depth then you must expect all the opprobrium coming your way. Several opportunities, an infinite amount in fact, extended to just slink off but none taken.

Playtime is over. Feel free to insult and smear me; to quote 'Ladykiller' by Lush: 'I know the score, I've heard it all before'. But, FFS, try to be original, even slightly cutting. Say something funny. Make me laugh.

But 'tory boy'? Mosely sympathiser? Embarrassing. For me and him.

[One Day Soon]

No.

But I'm only really following several leads. It's the politics of the playground: 'he started it!' and started it with a slight that was ignorant, offensive and noticed/commented on by others.

Can't take it, then don't dish it.

Makes me feel kinda cheap but if you're clearly out of your depth then you must expect all the opprobrium coming your way. Several opportunities, an infinite amount in fact, extended to just slink off but none taken.

Playtime is over. Feel free to insult and smear me; to quote 'Ladykiller' by Lush: 'I know the score, I've heard it all before'. But, FFS, try to be original, even slightly cutting. Say something funny. Make me laugh.

But 'tory boy'? Mosely sympathiser? Embarrassing. For me and him.


"Playtime is over" :faf: Have you gone all Phil Mitchell now?

You really are the most dangerous threat to your own credibility. Carry on.

[One Day Soon]

Does the proposal to make people who have been unemployed for a year or more do 'useful community work' not stand out like a sore thumb as either rank stupidity or blatant spin?

Surely if there is socially useful work to be done then such people could be given jobs to do it? Alternatively if the two Tory parties of the coalition genuinely believe that such people are deliberately malingering on benefits wouldn't the more honest thing be to either reduce or remove the benefit entitlement.

If as Danny Alexander - Treasury Tory Boy of the Lib Dems - claims, this is about helping people back into work rather than punishing them, then shouldn't the government be proposing such support from day one rather than waiting a year to decide that they need such help back into work?

It seems to me we are back to the financial services managers doing volunteering work argument from another thread. Sounds good, but doesn't make much sense. It will keep Daily Mail readers happy I suppose.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Which was of course around about half of what the Labour government had previously agreed to pay Europe....

Your pojnt being?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Does the proposal to make people who have been unemployed for a year or more do 'useful community work' not stand out like a sore thumb as either rank stupidity or blatant spin?

Surely if there is socially useful work to be done then such people could be given jobs to do it? Alternatively if the two Tory parties of the coalition genuinely believe that such people are deliberately malingering on benefits wouldn't the more honest thing be to either reduce or remove the benefit entitlement.

If as Danny Alexander - Treasury Tory Boy of the Lib Dems - claims, this is about helping people back into work rather than punishing them, then shouldn't the government be proposing such support from day one rather than waiting a year to decide that they need such help back into work?

It seems to me we are back to the financial services managers doing volunteering work argument from another thread. Sounds good, but doesn't make much sense. It will keep Daily Mail readers happy I suppose.

It's actually quite a smart move, you see people can'r claim they can't find work if they can't get out to look for work because they are doing community service, this will decrease the queues at the job centre meaning they need less staff. More money saved:thumbsup:

[Betty Boop]

It's actually quite a smart move, you see people can'r claim they can't find work if they can't get out to look for work because they are doing community service, this will decrease the queues at the job centre meaning they need less staff. More money saved:thumbsup:

I think it will lead to low paid workers losing their jobs, such as street sweepers and cleaners. Why would councils pay when they can get free labour ? :bitchy:

[easty]

I think it will lead to low paid workers losing their jobs, such as street sweepers and cleaners. Why would councils pay when they can get free labour ? :bitchy:

But on the plus side, one year down the line when its their turn to go act as street sweepers and cleaners they'll already be trained for the job. Government won't have to pay to train them. Even more money saved.:wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Does the proposal to make people who have been unemployed for a year or more do 'useful community work' not stand out like a sore thumb as either rank stupidity or blatant spin?

Surely if there is socially useful work to be done then such people could be given jobs to do it? Alternatively if the two Tory parties of the coalition genuinely believe that such people are deliberately malingering on benefits wouldn't the more honest thing be to either reduce or remove the benefit entitlement.

If as Danny Alexander - Treasury Tory Boy of the Lib Dems - claims, this is about helping people back into work rather than punishing them, then shouldn't the government be proposing such support from day one rather than waiting a year to decide that they need such help back into work?

It seems to me we are back to the financial services managers doing volunteering work argument from another thread. Sounds good, but doesn't make much sense. It will keep Daily Mail readers happy I suppose.

It's a wee bit of a concern, as it assumes that everybody who can't find work is a malingerer. My concern is that the chancers will just treat this scheme as a joke, whilst the more vulnerable will be abused as usual.

[Phil D. Rolls]

But on the plus side, one year down the line when its their turn to go act as street sweepers and cleaners they'll already be trained for the job. Government won't have to pay to train them. Even more money saved.:wink:

Ha ha ha, that's really funny like.

[easty]

Ha ha ha, that's really funny like.

Sarcasm.....almost always unnecessary.

And I'm actually on your side on this whole thing!

[One Day Soon]

I think it will lead to low paid workers losing their jobs, such as street sweepers and cleaners. Why would councils pay when they can get free labour ? :bitchy:

I'm curious as to what kind of work they are going to do that will have value and won't displace other workers. Who is going to supervise it and what will that cost? How will they decide if someone has performed to standard? Will it be good enough to just turn up and listlessly pass time?

This thing is as full of holes as Swiss cheese.

[Phil D. Rolls]

But on the plus side, one year down the line when its their turn to go act as street sweepers and cleaners they'll already be trained for the job. Government won't have to pay to train them. Even more money saved.:wink:


Sarcasm.....almost always unnecessary.

And I'm actually on your side on this whole thing!

Sorry, I didn't pick up on the fact you were being ironic. :embarrass

I've not been the sharpest tool in the box the last couple of days. I'm still recovering from freezing my butt off in the FF on Sunday.

[Beefster]

I'm curious as to what kind of work they are going to do that will have value and won't displace other workers. Who is going to supervise it and what will that cost? How will they decide if someone has performed to standard? Will it be good enough to just turn up and listlessly pass time?

This thing is as full of holes as Swiss cheese.

[email protected]

Instead of continually bumping your gums on the web about how horrible they all are, when you don't actually know what's being planned, go ahead and ask them for the details. You might still think that they're all evil but at least you'll be informed.

[One Day Soon]

[email protected]

Instead of continually bumping your gums on the web about how horrible they all are, when you don't actually know what's being planned, go ahead and ask them for the details. You might still think that they're all evil but at least you'll be informed.

Instead of continually coming on here about how right they are, when you don't actually know what's being planned, why don't you go ahead and ask them for the details? You might still think they're all great but at least you'll be informed.

If you don't know the answer to the questions I posed Beefster, its alright to just say so. Do you think these are unreasonable questions?

[Mibbes Aye]

Which was of course around about half of what the Labour government had previously agreed to pay Europe....

That's not true though is it? It's just great when both the Coalition and its supporters show an equal disdain for honesty :greengrin :rolleyes:

Labour aren't in power so you can't second-guess what they may have done. Certainly they went into the last election with almost the same policy on the EU budget as the Tories.

Of course Labour maybe had more credibility within Europe as, unlike the Tories, they hadn't aligned themselves with far-right homophobes and their like.

I suspect you're referring to the reduction in our rebate - I would suggest that any rebate isn't included in base budgets which negates your point. As for the validity of the rebate, IIRC it was secured on the basis at the time that the UK was one of the poorer member states under Thatcher and most EU spending (nearly three-quarters?) was on the Common Agricultural Policy from which Britain relatively under-benefitted.

Of course Britain is far from being one of the poorer member states now and EU spending on the CAP has plummeted to well under a half. It's pretty indefensible to suggest the rebate shouldn't have been revised. While it might not be the best outcome from a purely selfish point of view, it's hard to see how we can retain credibility arguing for exceptional treatment when the justification has diminished. And given the EU is our primary place of trade, being serious and credible is helpful.

At least it would be if we want to be treated as serious and credible. If we want to mingle with the neo-Nazis, queer-bashers and Holocaust deniers on the fringes of Europe, (and that's where Cameron took the Euro Tories) it probably doesn't matter quite so much :greengrin

[Beefster]

Instead of continually coming on here about how right they are, when you don't actually know what's being planned, why don't you go ahead and ask them for the details? You might still think they're all great but at least you'll be informed.

If you don't know the answer to the questions I posed Beefster, its alright to just say so. Do you think these are unreasonable questions?

I don't defend everything they do but I think you blindly criticise everything they do.

Questions are healthy. It's the criticism and making your mind up before you get the answers that isn't.

[Leicester Fan]

That's not true though is it? It's just great when both the Coalition and its supporters show an equal disdain for honesty :greengrin :rolleyes:

Labour aren't in power so you can't second-guess what they may have done. Certainly they went into the last election with almost the same policy on the EU budget as the Tories.

Of course Labour maybe had more credibility within Europe as, unlike the Tories, they hadn't aligned themselves with far-right homophobes and their like.

I suspect you're referring to the reduction in our rebate - I would suggest that any rebate isn't included in base budgets which negates your point. As for the validity of the rebate, IIRC it was secured on the basis at the time that the UK was one of the poorer member states under Thatcher and most EU spending (nearly three-quarters?) was on the Common Agricultural Policy from which Britain relatively under-benefitted.

Of course Britain is far from being one of the poorer member states now and EU spending on the CAP has plummeted to well under a half. It's pretty indefensible to suggest the rebate shouldn't have been revised. While it might not be the best outcome from a purely selfish point of view, it's hard to see how we can retain credibility arguing for exceptional treatment when the justification has diminished. And given the EU is our primary place of trade, being serious and credible is helpful.

At least it would be if we want to be treated as serious and credible. If we want to mingle with the neo-Nazis, queer-bashers and Holocaust deniers on the fringes of Europe, (and that's where Cameron took the Euro Tories) it probably doesn't matter quite so much :greengrin

As always, utter bull****. Tony Blair gave away our rebate on the condition that France reconsidered what it received from the CAP, which they did for about 5 seconds and decided that they quite liked giving our money to their farmers so they kept things as they were. What a triumph for being at the heart of Europe.

If the weathers cold, If Hibs lose or if your lottery numbers don't come up it's all an evil tory plot to you.If the tories introduced free school meals for all you'd accuse them of encouraging childhood obesity. There really is no point arguing with you.

[Mibbes Aye]

As always, utter bull****. Tony Blair gave away our rebate on the condition that France reconsidered what it received from the CAP, which they did for about 5 seconds and decided that they quite liked giving our money to their farmers so they kept things as they were. What a triumph for being at the heart of Europe.

If the weathers cold, If Hibs lose or if your lottery numbers don't come up it's all an evil tory plot to you.If the tories introduced free school meals for all you'd accuse them of encouraging childhood obesity. There really is no point arguing with you.

I'm sorry you feel it has to be about arguing.

[Leicester Fan]

I'm sorry you feel it has to be about arguing.

I'm sorry too but seriously is there any point? According to you everything the coalition does is either stupid, incompetent or evil. We get it, you don't like them. Just put 'The Tories are all ****s' in your sig and save yourself the effort.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm sorry too but seriously is there any point? According to you everything the coalition does is either stupid, incompetent or evil. We get it, you don't like them. Just put 'The Tories are all ****s' in your sig and save yourself the effort.

So we've shifted.

It used to be that any opinions on the Government weren't responded to by its supporters on here, but were deflected with defensiveness about how Labour did this and did that.

Now that's too much effort and it's just a case of labelling those who post an opinion on the Government.

Play the ball, not the man.

[One Day Soon]

I'm sorry too but seriously is there any point? According to you everything the coalition does is either stupid, incompetent or evil. We get it, you don't like them. Just put 'The Tories are all ****s' in your sig and save yourself the effort.

With respect Leicester I'm still waiting for your figures on immigration following our earlier exchange. It isn't really a debate at all if you assert something but don't then evidence it and there has been quite a lot of that on here - particularly in respect of what Labour did and did not do previously.

I freely admit to loathing some of the Tories - particularly Cameron and Osborne (I also know some of the others and quite like them) - but in the cut and thrust of discussion I don't see why you and others could not persuade of some of their case with evidence. It is also a bit rich to be complaining about this when there is a blanket 'all New Labour bad' policy in place from one or two posters.

Incidentally, if the Tories introduced free school meals for all I would accuse them of pointless universalism. It's the kind of gesture politics we got from Tommy's Trots in the Scottish Parliament. If government could develop fast and accurate means testing I would go for that every time. Providing of course it took account of all assets and income including property.

[One Day Soon]

I don't defend everything they do but I think you blindly criticise everything they do.

Questions are healthy. It's the criticism and making your mind up before you get the answers that isn't.

Hang on a minute Beefster, let's re-examine the post you replied to.

I said this:
"I'm curious as to what kind of work they are going to do that will have value and won't displace other workers. Who is going to supervise it and what will that cost? How will they decide if someone has performed to standard? Will it be good enough to just turn up and listlessly pass time?

This thing is as full of holes as Swiss cheese."

Which questions were unfair and why do you disagree with the conclusion?

[Beefster]

Hang on a minute Beefster, let's re-examine the post you replied to.

I said this:
"I'm curious as to what kind of work they are going to do that will have value and won't displace other workers. Who is going to supervise it and what will that cost? How will they decide if someone has performed to standard? Will it be good enough to just turn up and listlessly pass time?

This thing is as full of holes as Swiss cheese."

Which questions were unfair and why do you disagree with the conclusion?

I didn't say the questions were unfair. I said that you had made up your mind before you had the answers to the questions. How can you tell that the proposals are 'as full of holes as Swiss cheese' when you, admittedly, don't know all the thinking behind the proposal?

I'm not sure what conclusion you are talking about but if it's making folk on long-term dole do a couple of weeks work in order to keep their benefits, I'm all for it. Your argument about employing folk, on the taxpayer, to do all these minor tasks is an area that we're never going to agree, considering our differing views on the role of the state. I want the state to keep us safe, healthy and living in relative comfort. I don't want them micromanaging every single aspect of society or employing folk to do every little thing that needs done at our expense. Under your plan, I presume that you'd do away with voluntary work too because someone could be getting paid, by the taxpayer, to do it instead.

[RyeSloan]

That's not true though is it? It's just great when both the Coalition and its supporters show an equal disdain for honesty :greengrin :rolleyes:

Labour aren't in power so you can't second-guess what they may have done. Certainly they went into the last election with almost the same policy on the EU budget as the Tories.

Of course Labour maybe had more credibility within Europe as, unlike the Tories, they hadn't aligned themselves with far-right homophobes and their like.

I suspect you're referring to the reduction in our rebate - I would suggest that any rebate isn't included in base budgets which negates your point. As for the validity of the rebate, IIRC it was secured on the basis at the time that the UK was one of the poorer member states under Thatcher and most EU spending (nearly three-quarters?) was on the Common Agricultural Policy from which Britain relatively under-benefitted.

Of course Britain is far from being one of the poorer member states now and EU spending on the CAP has plummeted to well under a half. It's pretty indefensible to suggest the rebate shouldn't have been revised. While it might not be the best outcome from a purely selfish point of view, it's hard to see how we can retain credibility arguing for exceptional treatment when the justification has diminished. And given the EU is our primary place of trade, being serious and credible is helpful.

At least it would be if we want to be treated as serious and credible. If we want to mingle with the neo-Nazis, queer-bashers and Holocaust deniers on the fringes of Europe, (and that's where Cameron took the Euro Tories) it probably doesn't matter quite so much :greengrin

Well from what I read the increase in the EU's budget was agreed in 2007, I accept on further reading the increase in question here may have been on top of that, however as ever with EU funding nothings not entirely clear!

The fact it is that politically it was virtually impossible for Cameron to freeze the proposed increase, he is after all only one member of a club of 27 so I think he did reasonably well in getting the right people onside to limit the increase. Doesn't actually mean I agree the EU budget should increase (although to be fair it is still only around about 1% or so of Europes GDP) but that in this case it was a reasonable outcome.

Interesting though that you fully support Labour's agreement to reduce the rebate by over £10bn....shame those sooo happy to have a pop at Cameron for limiting the EU budget increase don't have quite as good memories.


I take your point on the Euro Parliament though, Euro MEP's seem to be a law unto themselves and there has been a number of strange alliances between rather disparate 'groups' over the years and none more so than the one you have mentioned.

[Betty Boop]

Thousands of students and lecturers marching in London to protest against cuts in higher education and student fees, also cuts to EMA. I think the condems may have under estimated the strength of feeling about these cuts. Millbank tower has now been occupied, looks like there is now trouble.

[bighairyfaeleith]

If you borrow 30k while at uni, how much will you pay back each month, I reckon it has to be around £300 or £400 a month, that's quite a lot for someone earning 21k.

I know some graduates earn a lot more but the I don't believe the majority earn lots of money right away, if at all.

Anyone know the proper figures?

[Betty Boop]

The Libdems look rather foolish after campaigning in universities, and assuring students they would oppose any rise in tuition fees, and even advocating abolishing them in England and Wales.

[Beefster]

If you borrow 30k while at uni, how much will you pay back each month, I reckon it has to be around £300 or £400 a month, that's quite a lot for someone earning 21k.

I know some graduates earn a lot more but the I don't believe the majority earn lots of money right away, if at all.

Anyone know the proper figures?

Unsurprisingly, your figures bear no resemblance to reality. Someone earning £21k won't pay anything.

English students will pay back 9% of whatever they earn over £21,000. If they earn £30k pa, they'll pay back £67.50 a month. If they earn £60k, they'll pay back £292.50 a month.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Unsurprisingly, your figures bear no resemblance to reality. Someone earning £21k won't pay anything.

English students will pay back 9% of whatever they earn over £21,000. If they earn £30k pa, they'll pay back £67.50 a month. If they earn £60k, they'll pay back £292.50 a month.

Thats why I asked the question beefy, I'm quite happy to admit I don't know everything, thanks for the wee dig though, shows you are a true tory:greengrin

I never knew the payback amount was based on a % of what you earn as opposed to what you owe, makes sense. If someone was to leave uni with 40k of debt and earn 30k a year they would be paying it back for 49 years. Now I'm sure someone with a much superior brain than mine will come along and shoot me down, but is this correct?

Not sure they will be working that long:confused:

[Leicester Fan]

With respect Leicester I'm still waiting for your figures on immigration following our earlier exchange. It isn't really a debate at all if you assert something but don't then evidence it and there has been quite a lot of that on here - particularly in respect of what Labour did and did not do previously.



I didn't provide any figures because I didn't look for any. There's no point looking for proof for something we all know anyway. It was common knowledge at the time and still is now that immigration went up massively under Labour.

If you're so convinced that you're right though please prove me wrong. Pick any year between say the year 2000 to 2005.

[Future17]

I didn't provide any figures because I didn't look for any. There's no point looking for proof for something we all know anyway. It was common knowledge at the time and still is now that immigration went up massively under Labour.

If you're so convinced that you're right though please prove me wrong. Pick any year between say the year 2000 to 2005.

For the sake of wading into the argument, from the Office of National Statistics - International Migration into the United Kingdom in thousands:

1998 - 140
1999 - 163
2000 - 158
2001 - 173
2002 - 154
2003 - 147
2004 - 244
2005 - 204

Those figure are for the balance increase in population - the inflow figures are:

1998 - 391
1999 - 454
2000 - 479
2001 - 479
2002 - 513
2003 - 508
2004 - 586
2005 - 563

According to the ONS, these figure are based on "estimates of Long-Term International Migration (LTIM) derived from the International Passenger Survey (IPS), Home Office data, estimates of flows between the UK and Irish Republic from Central Statistics Office, Dublin (up to 2007) and estimates of flows to and from Northern Ireland from the Northern Ireland Research and Statistics Agency (2008 onwards). Adjustments are also made for people whose intentions change with respect to their length of stay."

[magpie1892]

For the sake of wading into the argument, from the Office of National Statistics - International Migration into the United Kingdom in thousands:

1998 - 140
1999 - 163
2000 - 158
2001 - 173
2002 - 154
2003 - 147
2004 - 244
2005 - 204

Those figure are for the balance increase in population - the inflow figures are:

1998 - 391
1999 - 454
2000 - 479
2001 - 479
2002 - 513
2003 - 508
2004 - 586
2005 - 563

According to the ONS, these figure are based on "estimates of Long-Term International Migration (LTIM) derived from the International Passenger Survey (IPS), Home Office data, estimates of flows between the UK and Irish Republic from Central Statistics Office, Dublin (up to 2007) and estimates of flows to and from Northern Ireland from the Northern Ireland Research and Statistics Agency (2008 onwards). Adjustments are also made for people whose intentions change with respect to their length of stay."

That can't be right. That shows a massive increase in immigration to the UK?

You must be a 'tory boy'

Next you'll be telling us that immigrants from East and West Africa and Southeast Asia have more children than white people.

And that would make you a nazi.

[magpie1892]

I didn't provide any figures because I didn't look for any. There's no point looking for proof for something we all know anyway. It was common knowledge at the time and still is now that immigration went up massively under Labour.

If you're so convinced that you're right though please prove me wrong. Pick any year between say the year 2000 to 2005.

Your willingness to grasp at stereotypes betrays what will almost certainly be a lack of ability to form an original judgement of your own!

For shame, Leicester. For shame.

[One Day Soon]

For the sake of wading into the argument, from the Office of National Statistics - International Migration into the United Kingdom in thousands:

1998 - 140
1999 - 163
2000 - 158
2001 - 173
2002 - 154
2003 - 147
2004 - 244
2005 - 204

Those figure are for the balance increase in population - the inflow figures are:

1998 - 391
1999 - 454
2000 - 479
2001 - 479
2002 - 513
2003 - 508
2004 - 586
2005 - 563

According to the ONS, these figure are based on "estimates of Long-Term International Migration (LTIM) derived from the International Passenger Survey (IPS), Home Office data, estimates of flows between the UK and Irish Republic from Central Statistics Office, Dublin (up to 2007) and estimates of flows to and from Northern Ireland from the Northern Ireland Research and Statistics Agency (2008 onwards). Adjustments are also made for people whose intentions change with respect to their length of stay."

Now there's a nice set of figures we can debate. What's missing to give a full picture is the breakdown of inward migration between EU and non EU nationals and also the proportion of net inward migration accounted for by returning UK born citizens. Pushing my luck but I don't suppose you have or can supply those too? Does your source give figures from the pre 1997 period?

[One Day Soon]

I didn't provide any figures because I didn't look for any. There's no point looking for proof for something we all know anyway. It was common knowledge at the time and still is now that immigration went up massively under Labour.

If you're so convinced that you're right though please prove me wrong. Pick any year between say the year 2000 to 2005.

I don't want to be pedantic but if you are the one making the assertion about immigration shouldn't you be the one to produce your evidence? You may be wrong or right, but without the facts its a bit difficult to have a proper debate. Future 17 has had a good stab at it but even then we are only looking at figures covering the Labour period in government (and not even all of that) so there's no comparator there to the Tory years.

[magpie1892]

'Give me figures, if you can!'

OK, there you go.

'Let's debate these figures!'

Get aff.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I do find the whole argument over immigration ridiculous. Both Labour and the Tories can do nothing about immigration from within the EU.

The fact is that between 1998 and 2008 the country was booming and we needed additional labour, so it piled in from poland. Now that we are in decline a lot of the immigrants have went back home. It's a natural effect of boom and bust. Silly limits to grab headlines won't make any difference. So no point arguing that the tories limits will affect growth because they won't restrict anything, also no point saying labour where slack on immigration when during there time we desperately needed additional labour from these countries.

[One Day Soon]

I didn't say the questions were unfair. I said that you had made up your mind before you had the answers to the questions. How can you tell that the proposals are 'as full of holes as Swiss cheese' when you, admittedly, don't know all the thinking behind the proposal?

I'm not sure what conclusion you are talking about but if it's making folk on long-term dole do a couple of weeks work in order to keep their benefits, I'm all for it. Your argument about employing folk, on the taxpayer, to do all these minor tasks is an area that we're never going to agree, considering our differing views on the role of the state. I want the state to keep us safe, healthy and living in relative comfort. I don't want them micromanaging every single aspect of society or employing folk to do every little thing that needs done at our expense. Under your plan, I presume that you'd do away with voluntary work too because someone could be getting paid, by the taxpayer, to do it instead.

How can you tell that the proposals are not 'as full of holes as Swiss cheese' when you, admittedly, don't know all the thinking behind the proposal?

Actually we might agree to some extent depending upon the nature of the work they are to be made to do. Don't assume that I hold a singularly Statist view, because I don't. Liberating public services from the producer interest culture is something I feel very strongly about. Some of that can be done by moving delivery of services outside the public sector and some of it by transforming culture and structure within public service organisations.

Your statement about employing folk on the taxpayer is a sweeping one. The taxpayer buys a lot of services - some from the public sector and some from the private sector. My point was that unless this 'work' is very carefully thought through we will simply end up displacing others from gainful employment, there are after all a number of private sector companies which carry out useful work at public expense.

If this is simply a punishment exercise for being long term unemployed (and I think we can be pretty sure it is) then it amounts to no more than spin. When it was announced we had Tories briefing that this was about getting tough on the workshy and simultaneously we had Danny Alexander sitting in a BBC studio trying to keep a straight face while saying it was about helping people to rediscover the life skills they need to get and hold down a job.

What threatens to be most ludicrous however is that such a scheme will almost certainly cost a good bit of public money to administer and disproportionately so to any benefit to the public good.

Who do you think will run it and oversee it? How will that be paid for? As I said before, it would be more honest, and more coherent in their own terms, of the government to announce they will simply withdraw or taper down the benefits of long term unemployed.

[Beefster]

Thats why I asked the question beefy, I'm quite happy to admit I don't know everything, thanks for the wee dig though, shows you are a true tory:greengrin

I never knew the payback amount was based on a % of what you earn as opposed to what you owe, makes sense. If someone was to leave uni with 40k of debt and earn 30k a year they would be paying it back for 49 years. Now I'm sure someone with a much superior brain than mine will come along and shoot me down, but is this correct?

Not sure they will be working that long:confused:

Nope, any amount outstanding after 30 years is written off.

[Future17]

That can't be right. That shows a massive increase in immigration to the UK?

You must be a 'tory boy'

Next you'll be telling us that immigrants from East and West Africa and Southeast Asia have more children than white people.

And that would make you a nazi.

I've been called worse.....now if you'd said "yam" - then I might be offended. :greengrin


Now there's a nice set of figures we can debate. What's missing to give a full picture is the breakdown of inward migration between EU and non EU nationals and also the proportion of net inward migration accounted for by returning UK born citizens.Pushing my luck but I don't suppose you have or can supply those too?

Those figures are there but, from what I've seen they aren't in one single location for easy comparison and would have to be calculated from different sources. I'll see how busy work is tomorrow but might have a go. :greengrin


Does your source give figures from the pre 1997 period?

I haven't actually seen them, so can't say for sure whether they are available or not, but I'll have a look when I get some time and get back to you.

A different methodology was used prior to 1998 (I presume the new/New Labour government changed it shortly after being elected) so the source of the figures will be different if they are available, but should be fine for comparison purposes in this debate.

[magpie1892]

Nope, any amount outstanding after 30 years is written off.

It's 25 years. I'm counting the days.

[bighairyfaeleith]

So basically increasing the cost of uni fees is pointless then as no one will be able to pay the money back on time:greengrin

[Beefster]

It's 25 years. I'm counting the days.

Cheers. Not sure where I got 30 years.


So basically increasing the cost of uni fees is pointless then as no one will be able to pay the money back on time:greengrin

Some will pay more (i.e. those who go on to earn a decent wage or can afford to pay it upfront ) and some will pay less (i.e. those who don't).

One thing that was evident yesterday from listening to the folk that were trashing London yesterday was how little students actually understand the proposals. I particularly enjoyed the mature student / NUS officer from London getting mauled on Newsnight!

[magpie1892]

I particularly enjoyed the mature student / NUS officer from London getting mauled on Newsnight!

I'm not in the UK at present - you got a link for that?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Cheers. Not sure where I got 30 years.



Some will pay more (i.e. those who go on to earn a decent wage or can afford to pay it upfront ) and some will pay less (i.e. those who don't).

One thing that was evident yesterday from listening to the folk that were trashing London yesterday was how little students actually understand the proposals. I particularly enjoyed the mature student / NUS officer from London getting mauled on Newsnight!

excuse my ignorance on his subject again, but can you choose to pay it back at a quicker rate, i.e. you might be paying £50 a month at the governments rate, but you think you can afford £100, can you do that?

[magpie1892]

excuse my ignorance on his subject again, but can you choose to pay it back at a quicker rate, i.e. you might be paying £50 a month at the governments rate, but you think you can afford £100, can you do that?

Yes. You can pay it in a oner if you want to.

[lapsedhibee]

Yes. You can pay it in a oner if you want to.

Penalties (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8084779/Penalty-for-graduates-who-pay-off-student-loans-early.html) for paying off early.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Penalties (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8084779/Penalty-for-graduates-who-pay-off-student-loans-early.html) for paying off early.

They need to be careful how they implement that, while I understand what they are trying to achieve it is unlikely to be well received if they just charge you more for paying it off early. Also, charging parents more if they pay for there kids course up front is pretty scandalous, ofcourse they will portray it as discounting for people who pay for the course with a loan but we all know thats ballcocks.

Need to see what they finally decide upon though as it's still to be confirmed.

[Beefster]

They need to be careful how they implement that, while I understand what they are trying to achieve it is unlikely to be well received if they just charge you more for paying it off early. Also, charging parents more if they pay for there kids course up front is pretty scandalous, ofcourse they will portray it as discounting for people who pay for the course with a loan but we all know thats ballcocks.

Need to see what they finally decide upon though as it's still to be confirmed.

You can't help making assumptions....

If the parents can afford to pay off the loans in a one-off payment, why did the kids need the loans in the first place?

As I understand it, the penalties are to stop rich families taking advantage of the scheme when they don't need it and then not contributing the expected interest (which helps fund those that don't earn enough to pay back the loans).

[One Day Soon]

You can't help making assumptions....

If the parents can afford to pay off the loans in a one-off payment, why did the kids need the loans in the first place?

As I understand it, the penalties are to stop rich families taking advantage of the scheme when they don't need it and then not contributing the expected interest (which helps fund those that don't earn enough to pay back the loans).


Good. I'm in favour of fees.The idea that further and higher education should have remained the preserve largely of the wealthy was both unfair and economically short sighted. The level of repayments required are hardly draconian given the lengthy period over which they can be repaid and if by bringing this income in we can broaden general access to these opportunities to attain then so much the better. My ideal system would involve grants for the very poorest.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You can't help making assumptions....

If the parents can afford to pay off the loans in a one-off payment, why did the kids need the loans in the first place?

As I understand it, the penalties are to stop rich families taking advantage of the scheme when they don't need it and then not contributing the expected interest (which helps fund those that don't earn enough to pay back the loans).

And you can't help but trying to have a dig, I have said I understand what they are trying to do, just that I don't think that is how it will be portrayed, also the course should cost what it costs, if you take a loan then you pay a bit more to cover the interest. Thats how loans work, why would you charge more for the course if you don't take a loan, thats just stupid. Now as I also said it's all still to be announced so it may all change.

[One Day Soon]

Cheers. Not sure where I got 30 years.



Some will pay more (i.e. those who go on to earn a decent wage or can afford to pay it upfront ) and some will pay less (i.e. those who don't).

One thing that was evident yesterday from listening to the folk that were trashing London yesterday was how little students actually understand the proposals. I particularly enjoyed the mature student / NUS officer from London getting mauled on Newsnight!

Students are for managing through their courses with the minimum amount of damage they can do to themselves and others while hopefully getting a meaningful qualification and learning something. Taking them seriously on most political or policy issues is not a clever idea. Some of them never leave their student politics behind which is depressing but you're always going to get the odd failure to launch.

What the point was of attacking Tory Central office I do not know. They could probably have more legitimately vented their anger outside Lib Dem HQ in Cowley Street. Its a much nicer spot too.

[magpie1892]

Students are for managing through their courses with the minimum amount of damage they can do to themselves and others while hopefully getting a meaningful qualification and learning something. Taking them seriously on most political or policy issues is not a clever idea. Some of them never leave their student politics behind which is depressing but you're always going to get the odd failure to launch.

What the point was of attacking Tory Central office I do not know. They could probably have more legitimately vented their anger outside Lib Dem HQ in Cowley Street. Its a much nicer spot too.

Christ, are you feeling OK?

[One Day Soon]

So, why does David Cameron need a personal photographer and personal film maker paid for by public money at £35,000 each a year? Particularly when "we are all in it together" in these vast budget cuts.

If "we are all in it together" does that mean that we will all shortly be having our own personal photographers and film makers sent to our homes?

Without having to think about it too hard I'd prefer to bin these two and employ some cops, nurses or teachers instead.

Hmm, "I told you so" is the order of the day here I think.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Hmm, "I told you so" is the order of the day here I think.

Why because Tory boy is now having his party pay for his personal photographer?

[One Day Soon]

Why because Tory boy is now having his party pay for his personal photographer?

Tsk, tsk. Indeed.

[Mibbes Aye]

According to the man David Cameron appointed as his senior adviser on business and enterprise, we "have never had it so good" and it's only a "so-called recession".

That seems to contradict everything Cameron and Clegg have been saying to justify their attack on the poor, the old, the weak and the young.

So who is telling the truth?

Cameron and Clegg?

Or the man Cameron appointed, Lord Young of Graffham?

It's two different stories. Somebody's lying.......

[Beefster]

According to the man David Cameron appointed as his senior adviser on business and enterprise, we "have never had it so good" and it's only a "so-called recession".

That seems to contradict everything Cameron and Clegg have been saying to justify their attack on the poor, the old, the weak and the young.

So who is telling the truth?

Cameron and Clegg?

Or the man Cameron appointed, Lord Young of Graffham?

It's two different stories. Somebody's lying.......

Politician (and a very minor one at that) talks pish shocker. You do remember Mandelson, right?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Politician (and a very minor one at that) talks pish shocker. You do remember Mandelson, right?

aye but labour done it first, so thats ok then:yawn:

[EskbankHibby]

According to the man David Cameron appointed as his senior adviser on business and enterprise, we "have never had it so good" and it's only a "so-called recession".

That seems to contradict everything Cameron and Clegg have been saying to justify their attack on the poor, the old, the weak and the young.

So who is telling the truth?

Cameron and Clegg?

Or the man Cameron appointed, Lord Young of Graffham?

It's two different stories. Somebody's lying.......

Let them eat cake!:wink:

[Betty Boop]

It just proves by Lord Young's crass comments, that these plums have no understanding of the real world that the rest of us have to live in. If this is a 'so called recession', 'and the vast majority of the country have never had it so good' why the immediate need to have such harsh spending cuts ?

[Beefster]

aye but labour done it first, so thats ok then:yawn:

Where did I say that? I implied that a politician talking pish was hardly a big deal unless someone is looking for a reason to be outraged.

Sometimes, it's like the left-wing version of the Daily Mail on here. Yet, we have a Labour Shadow Cabinet Minister having their election being declared null and void with barely a murmur on here. You'll note that I didn't run on here straight after the decision screeching about corrupt Labour this, lying Labour that.

[Beefster]

It just proves by Lord Young's crass comments, that these plums have no understanding of the real world that the rest of us have to live in. If this is a 'so called recession', 'and the vast majority of the country have never had it so good' why the immediate need to have such harsh spending cuts ?

There's a difference between me paying a lot less on my mortgage and the need for public spending to be brought under control.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Where did I say that? I implied that a politician talking pish was hardly a big deal unless someone is looking for a reason to be outraged.

Sometimes, it's like the left-wing version of the Daily Mail on here. Yet, we have a Labour Shadow Cabinet Minister having their election being declared null and void with barely a murmur on here. You'll note that I didn't run on here straight after the decision screeching about corrupt Labour this, lying Labour that.

That's because we all know they are corrupt, all politicians are and labour are just as bad as the condems no doubt about it. However, in your attempt to immediately defend the tories you do so by saying labour are just as bad, similar to the line the tories keep coming out with as soon as you criticise anything they do, but labour but labour but labour but labour

It's very boring.

[Beefster]

That's because we all know they are corrupt, all politicians are and labour are just as bad as the condems no doubt about it. However, in your attempt to immediately defend the tories you do so by saying labour are just as bad, similar to the line the tories keep coming out with as soon as you criticise anything they do, but labour but labour but labour but labour

It's very boring.

You keep reading things into what I'm saying. I'm not defending the Tories - I'm not even defending the one that's in bother. I'm saying that it's not that a big deal, irrespective of who said it, and definitely not worth someone's 'outrage'.

I think that my point about every little thing that the Tories say/do being jumped on while other, worse offences are mainly ignored is valid though. There's a lot of hypocrisy goes on on here.

As I'm evidently boring you though, I'll continue to try and stay out of political debates.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You keep reading things into what I'm saying. I'm not defending the Tories - I'm not even defending the one that's in bother. I'm saying that it's not that a big deal, irrespective of who said it, and definitely not worth someone's 'outrage'.

I think that my point about every little thing that the Tories say/do being jumped on while other, worse offences are mainly ignored is valid though. There's a lot of hypocrisy goes on on here.

As I'm evidently boring you though, I'll continue to try and stay out of political debates.

Thing is the tories are now in power, so they are most likely to get the criticism, whether it be justified or not. Labour are out of power and anything they do is going to have minimal impact on our lives so they will attract less attention. Add on to that the fact that tories are viewed about as fondly as **** on your shoe in scotland it doesn't really help them:wink:

I do read things into what you are saying though, that is correct, I generally do that but your points do mainly defend the tories, perhaps this time you where not but it's not hard to see how I could make that leap is it?

Wasn't you per say that was boring me, more the continual line from the current government and a lot of it's followers that the answer to everything is to say "but labour"

[Mibbes Aye]

Where did I say that? I implied that a politician talking pish was hardly a big deal unless someone is looking for a reason to be outraged.

Sometimes, it's like the left-wing version of the Daily Mail on here. Yet, we have a Labour Shadow Cabinet Minister having their election being declared null and void with barely a murmur on here. You'll note that I didn't run on here straight after the decision screeching about corrupt Labour this, lying Labour that.

I take your point Beefster but as Bighairy says, there's a vast difference when it's Government and you actually have the power to improve or worsen people's lives.

The Tories have staked out a claim that private sector growth will absorb the jobs massacre that's taking place. But the man who is their senior advisor on enterprise and business was claiming everything was actually fine etc.

That's not really a compatible arrangement, regardless of the fact that some folks' mortgages might be lower currently. We all know that.

Hence the need to clarify whether Young spoke for the Government, in which case they have been lying about why they are cutting, or Young wasn't speaking for the Government in which case he would have to resign.

As it turns out, we are being asked to believe that Young wasn't speaking for the Government and so he's gone.

While the man may have left I think a lot of people will feel the mindset remains though.

[Mibbes Aye]

Let them eat cake!:wink:

:greengrin

Of course now that the Tories have handed over regulation of the food industry to the fast food manufacturers, it probably would be cake, or anything that's addictive, full of additives and lacking in any nutritional goodness whatsoever :agree:

Private profit before the public's health - it's been the Tory way for manys a day :thumbsup:

[RyeSloan]

:greengrin

Of course now that the Tories have handed over regulation of the food industry to the fast food manufacturers, it probably would be cake, or anything that's addictive, full of additives and lacking in any nutritional goodness whatsoever :agree:

Private profit before the public's health - it's been the Tory way for manys a day :thumbsup:

I must have missed this, has the Food Standards Agency been scrapped :confused:

[Leicester Fan]

the jobs massacre

A little melodramatic don't you think?Especially as it was announced yesterday that unemployment had gone down.

As for Lord Young he merely pointed out that people were better off because interest rates had been cut which is true. It's also true that it was Labour that cut those interest rates with the aim of giving people more money to spend and help the economy.

It's a bit hypocritical of Labour to cry crocodile tears when in a way he was endorsing their policy.

A lot of fuss about nothing.

[Mibbes Aye]

A little melodramatic don't you think?Especially as it was announced yesterday that unemployment had gone down.

As for Lord Young he merely pointed out that people were better off because interest rates had been cut which is true. It's also true that it was Labour that cut those interest rates with the aim of giving people more money to spend and help the economy.

It's a bit hypocritical of Labour to cry crocodile tears when in a way he was endorsing their policy.

A lot of fuss about nothing.

The Bank of England (and international markets, should you choose to look at it broadly) set interest rates, not the Labour Party. It was a pretty big change back in 1997....

As for being better-off, if you're a pensioner, having put money away all your working life to protect your future and reliant on your savings, how does it affect you when interest rates plummet?

[bighairyfaeleith]

A little melodramatic don't you think?Especially as it was announced yesterday that unemployment had gone down.

As for Lord Young he merely pointed out that people were better off because interest rates had been cut which is true. It's also true that it was Labour that cut those interest rates with the aim of giving people more money to spend and help the economy.

It's a bit hypocritical of Labour to cry crocodile tears when in a way he was endorsing their policy.

A lot of fuss about nothing.

Kind of agree. In better off right now as I am overpaying my mortgage quite substantially due to the interest rates. However half our household income relies on local government so we are nervous about the cuts so I understand why people interpret this the wrong way.

I think this just a prime example of Tory foot in mouth syndrome.

[Leicester Fan]

The Bank of England (and international markets, should you choose to look at it broadly) set interest rates, not the Labour Party. It was a pretty big change back in 1997....

As for being better-off, if you're a pensioner, having put money away all your working life to protect your future and reliant on your savings, how does it affect you when interest rates plummet?

The monetary policy committee set the interest rates, the govt appoint the members. If it wasn't Labour policy they certainly weren't shy about telling us what a good turn they'd done us.

As for pensioners of course that's true but interest rates will almost certainly have to go up next year, I wonder if you'll applaud then.

[Betty Boop]

Eric Cantona--Kill The Banks

http://thedailybail.squarespace.com/home/eric-cantona-kill-the-banks-banque-stop-european-bank-run-on.html

[RyeSloan]

Eric Cantona--Kill The Banks

http://thedailybail.squarespace.com/home/eric-cantona-kill-the-banks-banque-stop-european-bank-run-on.html

Is this some sort of unfunny spoof :confused:

[Bad Martini]

Protests are our democratic right. As is VOTING...............! Ah wonders if all these folks who enjoy a good auld protest got of their erses and voted? I'd wager they didny all dae that. Shame really. The way to protest the most is NOT to give the fekers the job in the first place.....

Ahm blaming nobody for this..............after all, with the their track record for care, compassion, helpfulness and joy-spreading, why wouldn't we as a nation, vote in the Conservative & Unionist Party along with the snivelling, policy changing at a whim to get a shot in the chiefs seat Lib Dems? A marriage made in heaven. A shower of bassas who will make lots of nasty decisions and a shower of muppets to take the blame. Vintage :rolleyes:

:grr:

[Betty Boop]

Is this some sort of unfunny spoof :confused:


Absolutely not, the protest is already gathering support in France, Bankrun2010.com



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/20/eric-cantona-bank-protest-campaign

[Beefster]

Thought that this was relevant, considering how we're all having to suffer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_TWqAwobA4

[BEEJ]

Thought that this was relevant, considering how we're all having to suffer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_TWqAwobA4

:agree: We're living through distinctly unreal economic times.

[Mibbes Aye]

The monetary policy committee set the interest rates, the govt appoint the members. If it wasn't Labour policy they certainly weren't shy about telling us what a good turn they'd done us.

As for pensioners of course that's true but interest rates will almost certainly have to go up next year, I wonder if you'll applaud then.

Oh that's fine then. Are you promising they'll go up? And if so is that a real promise or a special Nick Clegg promise?

Pensioners reliant on their savings aren't better off when interest rates are so low. Which was your and Lord Young's original point.

They're going to be hit even harder when the VAT rise kicks in, in a matter of weeks. The tax rise that hits pensioners harder than people in work.

But we're supposed to be grateful, as someone posted previously IIRC, because the Tories aren't yet scrapping the winter fuel allowance.

-20 this week. At least our old folk might be warm, while they contemplate how much money the Tories are taking off them in January.

[Leicester Fan]

Oh that's fine then. Are you promising they'll go up? And if so is that a real promise or a special Nick Clegg promise?

Pensioners reliant on their savings aren't better off when interest rates are so low. Which was your and Lord Young's original point.

They're going to be hit even harder when the VAT rise kicks in, in a matter of weeks. The tax rise that hits pensioners harder than people in work.

But we're supposed to be grateful, as someone posted previously IIRC, because the Tories aren't yet scrapping the winter fuel allowance.

-20 this week. At least our old folk might be warm, while they contemplate how much money the Tories are taking off them in January.

It's not a promise, it's inevitable it will happen sooner or later. Inflation is creeping up and interest rates will have to go up to control it.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's not a promise, it's inevitable it will happen sooner or later. Inflation is creeping up and interest rates will have to go up to control it.

I agree with you - interest rates are a means of trying to control inflation.

It's just telling about how true colours emerge - the man Cameron appointed as his senior adviser thinks that everyone benefits from a certain situation, when any fool can see that a big group of the most vulnerable are actually suffering as a consequence.

Party of the few, not of the many. And when they're in power it's best not to be old or sick.

[Mibbes Aye]

The Libdems look rather foolish after campaigning in universities, and assuring students they would oppose any rise in tuition fees, and even advocating abolishing them in England and Wales.

The bit that seems hardest to comprehend is that Vince Cable, the Lib Dem :


campaigned against increasing tuition fees, signed a pledge even?
took a Tory job as the minister responsible for universities and announced that there would be an increase in tuition fees
and now says he might not vote for that rise that he put forward, because his party members are against it!
How many ways do you want it Vince?

What happened to Government ministers standing by Government policies? How is anyone supposed to take seriously a Government policy that the directly-responsible Cabinet minister refuses to vote for???

It smacks of craven cowardice - he should either vote for the Government policy he drew up (and give a big two fingers to those who voted Lib Dem) or he shouldn't vote for it and therefore resign and at least show some self-respect.

[Beefster]

I agree with you - interest rates are a means of trying to control inflation.

It's just telling about how true colours emerge - the man Cameron appointed as his senior adviser thinks that everyone benefits from a certain situation, when any fool can see that a big group of the most vulnerable are actually suffering as a consequence.

Party of the few, not of the many. And when they're in power it's best not to be old or sick.

A subtle twisting of reality there. Again.

The guy was appointed as an adviser on enterprise (so he wasn't Cameron's only adviser by any stretch), replacing Lord Sugar. Being brutally honest, his opinions on the recession's effect on the population (which had some basis in truth - some folk with mortgages, who haven't lost jobs, are better off financially) is neither here nor there on his ability to do the job he was given. David Cameron called his comments 'offensive' and sacked him so, yet again, how can you claim that he represents the views of the government?

It's a bit like saying that everyone in the Labour Party is a lying, cheating, fraud-committing, drink-driving tosser - just because a few of their politicians are.

[Beefster]

The bit that seems hardest to comprehend is that Vince Cable, the Lib Dem :


campaigned against increasing tuition fees, signed a pledge even?
took a Tory job as the minister responsible for universities and announced that there would be an increase in tuition fees
and now says he might not vote for that rise that he put forward, because his party members are against it!
How many ways do you want it Vince?

What happened to Government ministers standing by Government policies? How is anyone supposed to take seriously a Government policy that the directly-responsible Cabinet minister refuses to vote for???

It smacks of craven cowardice - he should either vote for the Government policy he drew up (and give a big two fingers to those who voted Lib Dem) or he shouldn't vote for it and therefore resign and at least show some self-respect.

You're absolutely right about Grandpaw Cable though. He's a disgrace to the government and his own party.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It was interesting to hear David Mellor on newsnight the other week, what he was saying was that a lot of the conservative party are disappointed with the current fiscal policy and actually want the government to go much further. Now I'm not entirely surprised by this, but it did throw up an interesting angle that it may actually be the tories who blink first in this coalition and not perhaps the lib dems, assuming the lib dems get through the student debacle of course.

[Leicester Fan]

I agree with you - interest rates are a means of trying to control inflation.

It's just telling about how true colours emerge - the man Cameron appointed as his senior adviser thinks that everyone benefits from a certain situation, when any fool can see that a big group of the most vulnerable are actually suffering as a consequence.

Party of the few, not of the many. And when they're in power it's best not to be old or sick.

But it was Labour that reduced interest rates, you can't have it both ways.

[Mibbes Aye]

But it was Labour that reduced interest rates, you can't have it both ways.

Except it wasn't.

It was the MPC of the Bank of England. And less than half of them are appointed by the Chancellor. And I don't think you would try and argue that Mervyn King was a New Labour man :wink:


And in January, George Osborne will put a bigger tax burden on everyone by hiking up the cost of buying goods from those very same businesses.

You're right. You couldn't make it up.


Aye on the same day the IFS say Osbourne is going to put another 200000 children into poverty. The first time in 15 years more children will have went into poverty than came out.

My how I have missed the Tories.

BHFL, I think these posts are better-suited to this thread :agree:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Except it wasn't.

It was the MPC of the Bank of England. And less than half of them are appointed by the Chancellor. And I don't think you would try and argue that Mervyn King was a New Labour man :wink:





BHFL, I think these posts are better-suited to this thread :agree:

Can't disagree with that

[Leicester Fan]

Except it wasn't.

It was the MPC of the Bank of England. And less than half of them are appointed by the Chancellor. And I don't think you would try and argue that Mervyn King was a New Labour man :wink:


During a period of Labour govt. How many of them were appointed by the Tories?

[Mibbes Aye]

During a period of Labour govt. How many of them were appointed by the Tories?

I don't know. Certainly the majority of the MPC come from the Bank, and its Governor has been shown to be more of a deficit hawk than Osborne or Cameron. And he certainly had a very low opinion of their abilities in the leaked correspondence, didn't he?

If you want to explore all this further maybe you should start a thread entitled "The make-up of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England during the last Labour Government"? :greengrin

Getting back to what this thread is about though, cause we would hate for it to be taken off-track to try and disguise what's been done to our country right now....

200,000 children forced into poverty by Tory policies.

Do you think that's acceptable?

Or do you think there is, there must, be a better way?

[Beefster]

I don't know. Certainly the majority of the MPC come from the Bank, and its Governor has been shown to be more of a deficit hawk than Osborne or Cameron. And he certainly had a very low opinion of their abilities in the leaked correspondence, didn't he?

If you want to explore all this further maybe you should start a thread entitled "The make-up of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England during the last Labour Government"? :greengrin

Getting back to what this thread is about though, cause we would hate for it to be taken off-track to try and disguise what's been done to our country right now....

200,000 children forced into poverty by Tory policies.

Do you think that's acceptable?

Or do you think there is, there must, be a better way?

The IFS has already admitted that there is uncertainty about their figures. Why do you always accept what the IFS say when it can be used to criticise the government but disregard anything that can be used to defend the government (i.e. that the tuition fee proposals are more progressive than currently)?

It's not acceptable by the way but I'd expect the government to do something about it, hence Frank Field's report.

[Leicester Fan]

I don't know. Certainly the majority of the MPC come from the Bank, and its Governor has been shown to be more of a deficit hawk than Osborne or Cameron. And he certainly had a very low opinion of their abilities in the leaked correspondence, didn't he?

If you want to explore all this further maybe you should start a thread entitled "The make-up of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England during the last Labour Government"? :greengrin

Getting back to what this thread is about though, cause we would hate for it to be taken off-track to try and disguise what's been done to our country right now....

200,000 children forced into poverty by Tory policies.

Do you think that's acceptable?

Or do you think there is, there must, be a better way?

The point is when interest rates were falling it was Gordon Brown saving the world with his financial brilliance. Now with interest rates still at exactly the same rate as they were under the last govt it's now the Tories deliberately trying to starve pensioners to death. As I said you can't have it both ways.

[Mibbes Aye]

The IFS has already admitted that there is uncertainty about their figures. Why do you always accept what the IFS say when it can be used to criticise the government but disregard anything that can be used to defend the government (i.e. that the tuition fee proposals are more progressive than currently)?

It's not acceptable by the way but I'd expect the government to do something about it, hence Frank Field's report.
I've not commented on tuition fees other than to say I understand why tripling the amount might put some people off, regardless of threshholds etc.

I'm surprised you expect the government to do something about it. It's their policies that are leading to this.

Does that mean you think they should say they've got it completely wrong and change direction?

I've no desire to seek the moral high ground but deliberately consigning 200,000 children to poverty is a sin. There's no other word for it......

[Mibbes Aye]

The point is when interest rates were falling it was Gordon Brown saving the world with his financial brilliance. Now with interest rates still at exactly the same rate as they were under the last govt it's now the Tories deliberately trying to starve pensioners to death. As I said you can't have it both ways.

I've said nothing of the sort. I have said that it's typical that a senior Tory can describe people as better-off because of low interest rates because he has no concern, no comprehension of what older people eking out a living from their savings have to put up with.

What's really funny is how you can't defend Tory policy so you flail around slagging Gordon Brown.

I'll ask again - do you think putting 200,000 children into poverty is acceptable?

[Beefster]

I've not commented on tuition fees other than to say I understand why tripling the amount might put some people off, regardless of threshholds etc.

I'm surprised you expect the government to do something about it. It's their policies that are leading to this.

Does that mean you think they should say they've got it completely wrong and change direction?

I've no desire to seek the moral high ground but deliberately consigning 200,000 children to poverty is a sin. There's no other word for it......

Deliberately? Do me a favour.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Deliberately? Do me a favour.

Surely it can only be one of two things, either deliberate or incompetant:confused:

[Beefster]

I've said nothing of the sort. I have said that it's typical that a senior Tory can describe people as better-off because of low interest rates because he has no concern, no comprehension of what older people eking out a living from their savings have to put up with.

What's really funny is how you can't defend Tory policy so you flail around slagging Gordon Brown.

I'll ask again - do you think putting 200,000 children into poverty is acceptable?

To counter your bias, he actually said that people with a mortgage were better off. He didn't claim or imply that everyone was better off. He's probably right too. I know that my household is hundreds of pounds a month better off - even after child benefit cuts, pay freezes and tax rises are taken into account. I'm sure that'll change when interest rates rise again though.

Even then, he resigned. I don't recall you criticising Phil Woolas, David Chaytor, Elliot Morley, Jim Devine or any other Labour politician for a sustained period despite their behaviour being considerably worse than saying something you may not agree with.

[Beefster]

Surely it can only be one of two things, either deliberate or incompetant:confused:

Not if they put in subsequent policies to deal with any unintended consequences.

If all tax and spending policies were inherently fair, there would be no need for something like Tax Credits, would there?

[Leicester Fan]

I'll ask again - do you think putting 200,000 children into poverty is acceptable?

It depends on your definition of poverty. I guarantee that no children will starve or go homeless through lack of money. A lot will still be able to afford Sky tv.

Nobody who gets 60% of average income is that badly off.

[Mibbes Aye]

Not if they put in subsequent policies to deal with any unintended consequences.

If all tax and spending policies were inherently fair, there would be no need for something like Tax Credits, would there?

So how are they specfically going to address it then? I hope it's something more robust than an Osborne promise of growth.

Serious question, don't you think it would be better not putting children into poverty in the first place?

It seems a bit crass to describe nearly a quarter of a million children being put into poverty as 'unintended consequences' incidentally.

[Mibbes Aye]

It depends on your definition of poverty. I guarantee that no children will starve or go homeless through lack of money. A lot will still be able to afford Sky tv.

Nobody who gets 60% of average income is that badly off.

You guarantee no children will become homeless through a lack of money?

Really?

[Mibbes Aye]

To counter your bias, he actually said that people with a mortgage were better off. He didn't claim or imply that everyone was better off. He's probably right too. I know that my household is hundreds of pounds a month better off - even after child benefit cuts, pay freezes and tax rises are taken into account. I'm sure that'll change when interest rates rise again though.

Even then, he resigned. I don't recall you criticising Phil Woolas, David Chaytor, Elliot Morley, Jim Devine or any other Labour politician for a sustained period despite their behaviour being considerably worse than saying something you may not agree with.
Sorry Beefster but he didn't say homeowners were better off. He said the vast majority of people were.

If that's the case then why are Osborne and Cameron telling us it's awful and we are all in it together?

[Beefster]

So how are they specfically going to address it then? I hope it's something more robust than an Osborne promise of growth.

Serious question, don't you think it would be better not putting children into poverty in the first place?

It seems a bit crass to describe nearly a quarter of a million children being put into poverty as 'unintended consequences' incidentally.

I don't know - I'm not in the coalition government.

It would be ideal not to do it in the first place but life isn't like that. As I said, sometimes you have to put policies measure into place and take care of the consequences to certain sections of society in another way. Again, as I said, tax credits is a prime example - everyone gets taxed and the lower-paid get some back to counter the effects.


Sorry Beefster but he didn't say homeowners were better off. He said the vast majority of people were.

If that's the case then why are Osborne and Cameron telling us it's awful and we are all in it together?

We're both right - “For the vast majority of people in the country today they have never had it so good ever since this recession — this so-called recession — started, because anybody, most people with a mortgage who were paying a lot of money each month, suddenly started paying very little each month. That could make three, four, five, six hundred pounds a month difference, free of tax.”

As you well know, Osborne and Cameron (and Clegg, Alexander, Cable, Hughes et al) are talking about the deficit and its reduction. If interest rates weren't so low (and they may not be for much longer), mortgage-holders won't be so well off.

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't know - I'm not in the coalition government.

It would be ideal not to do it in the first place but life isn't like that. As I said, sometimes you have to put policies measure into place and take care of the consequences to certain sections of society in another way. Again, as I said, tax credits is a prime example - everyone gets taxed and the lower-paid get some back to counter the effects.


We're both right - “For the vast majority of people in the country today they have never had it so good ever since this recession — this so-called recession — started, because anybody, most people with a mortgage who were paying a lot of money each month, suddenly started paying very little each month. That could make three, four, five, six hundred pounds a month difference, free of tax.”

As you well know, Osborne and Cameron (and Clegg, Alexander, Cable, Hughes et al) are talking about the deficit and its reduction. If interest rates weren't so low (and they may not be for much longer), mortgage-holders won't be so well off.

Take your other points :agree:

Regarding the bit I've highlighted in bold though, what's your evidence for saying that the government will try and fix the problem of 200,000 children being put into poverty?

It's their policies that are causing it. You've said that you don't know what they'll do to fix it, but that they will.

Why should we trust you and believe they will want to fix it?

Straight question, why?

[Beefster]

Take your other points :agree:

Regarding the bit I've highlighted in bold though, what's your evidence for saying that the government will try and fix the problem of 200,000 children being put into poverty?

It's their policies that are causing it. You've said that you don't know what they'll do to fix it, but that they will.

Why should we trust you and believe they will want to fix it?

Straight question, why?

I said that I expect them to try and negate any effects.

Let's be honest, it doesn't really matter what I (or they, for that matter) say. I believe that by appointing Frank Field to carry out a review, by putting Duncan-Smith (probably the expert on poverty in Parliament) in the cabinet at Work and Pensions and just because it's the right thing to do that they're serious about trying to bring kids out of poverty. Just as I believed Labour were serious about it.

Needless to say, they'll miss their targets and political opponents will crucify them but that won't be exclusive to the current government.

[Mibbes Aye]

I said that I expect them to try and negate any effects.

Let's be honest, it doesn't really matter what I (or they, for that matter) say. I believe that by appointing Frank Field to carry out a review, by putting Duncan-Smith (probably the expert on poverty in Parliament) in the cabinet at Work and Pensions and just because it's the right thing to do that they're serious about trying to bring kids out of poverty. Just as I believed Labour were serious about it.

Needless to say, they'll miss their targets and political opponents will crucify them but that won't be exclusive to the current government.

If they're that bothered about children being in poverty, why put them into it in the first place?

[RyeSloan]

Take your other points :agree:

Regarding the bit I've highlighted in bold though, what's your evidence for saying that the government will try and fix the problem of 200,000 children being put into poverty?

It's their policies that are causing it. You've said that you don't know what they'll do to fix it, but that they will.

Why should we trust you and believe they will want to fix it?

Straight question, why?

Here we go again. You are using an IFS study which they themselves claim contain considerable uncertainty as absolute an irrefutable fact.

You also know that the arbitary figures used to calculate 'poverty' are a very poor indicator as a quote from the Guardian shows:

Neil O'Brien, director of the right-leaning Policy Exchange thinktank, said: "The problem with what the IFS is saying is that the measure they use isn't an indicator of real poverty; it's a measure of inequality. It defines 'poverty' as being below 60% of the average income.

"This is a hangover from the Gordon Brown era. Real poverty isn't the same as inequality. The IFS's definition would mean that there are actually more people in poverty in Britain today than there are in Poland."

So in summary the 200k figure is an estimate, based on considerable uncertainty on a measure that is itself somewhat unreliable.

All for a debate but your constant use of figures like the above don't really help you come across as approaching the debate in a balanced manner.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Here we go again. You are using an IFS study which they themselves claim contain considerable uncertainty as absolute an irrefutable fact.

You also know that the arbitary figures used to calculate 'poverty' are a very poor indicator as a quite form the Guardian shows:

Neil O'Brien, director of the right-leaning Policy Exchange thinktank, said: "The problem with what the IFS is saying is that the measure they use isn't an indicator of real poverty; it's a measure of inequality. It defines 'poverty' as being below 60% of the average income.

"This is a hangover from the Gordon Brown era. Real poverty isn't the same as inequality. The IFS's definition would mean that there are actually more people in poverty in Britain today than there are in Poland."

So in summary the 200k figure is an estimate, based on considerable uncertainty on a measure that is itself somewhat unreliable.

All for a debate but your constant use of figures like the above don't really help you come across as approaching the debate in a balanced manner.

So basically the measurement of poverty is wrong, we'll change the measurement then it will all be fine:rolleyes:

[RyeSloan]

So basically the measurement of poverty is wrong, we'll change the measurement then it will all be fine:rolleyes:


Who said that?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Who said that?

You, I also like how anyone against the tory view is just giving an unbalanced argument.:rolleyes:

[RyeSloan]

You, I also like how anyone against the tory view is just giving an unbalanced argument.:rolleyes:

No I didn't...please show where I said "change the measurement then it will all be fine" or anything like that.

While you are doing that please also show me the evidence to support your statements that I believe "anyone against the tory view is just giving an unbalanced argument". This was a specific statement in response to MA using estimated figures based on a number of assumptions as certain fact.

[bighairyfaeleith]

No I didn't...please show where I said "change the measurement then it will all be fine" or anything like that.

While you are doing that please also show me the evidence to support your statements that I believe "anyone against the tory view is just giving an unbalanced argument". This was a specific statement in response to MA using estimated figures based on a number of assumptions as certain fact.

You quite clearly implied the figures on how poverty is measured are dodgy, so you are saying stick with them then?

Just because someone in a newspaper writes an article doesn't make it fact. Just because you say it, doesn't make it fact. In fact your argument actually looks the more unbalanced.

The tories love the IFS when it suits them, and completely dismisses them when it doesn't. Thats not good, that basically shows us they will just implement whatever policy they want to regardless of the facts and figures around that issue.


All for a debate but your constant use of figures like the above don't really help you come across as approaching the debate in a balanced manner.

I don't see anything unbalanced in his argument, it's just different from yours, but as so often happens on here if your view goes against the government someone like yourself or beefy will come along and try and dismiss his argument saying it is unbalanced, that we have a chip on our shoulers, we hate the tories :blah::blah::blah:

It is quite possible to disagree with a government policy just because you disagree with that policy rather than you think the tories are evil. (Even if they are evil)

[Beefster]

The tories love the IFS when it suits them, and completely dismisses them when it doesn't.

I could point out numerous examples of posters doing exactly the same thing on here, probably including you and I.

It's easy to say that anyone that disagrees with you just dismisses your argument but I don't actually think that's reality. I know that I always try to justify my position (or question yours) and I don't think it's fair to say that SiMar does it either.

[RyeSloan]

You quite clearly implied the figures on how poverty is measured are dodgy, so you are saying stick with them then?

I said the measure was unreliable. I firmly believe it is and anyone who understands the current measures of relative and absolte poverty used to complile these stats would admit that they are far from a perfect measure.

That clearly does not equal "change the measurement then it will all be fine"



Just because someone in a newspaper writes an article doesn't make it fact. Just because you say it, doesn't make it fact. In fact your argument actually looks the more unbalanced..

You have lost me here...where was I claiming facts? I was merely pointing out that the IFS had themsleves admitted that the figure was based on certain assumptions. I then suggested that the measurement that this estimate was using to provide the headline figure was in itself somewhat unreliable. The quote from the Guardian was used to support that supposition.



The tories love the IFS when it suits them, and completely dismisses them when it doesn't. Thats not good, that basically shows us they will just implement whatever policy they want to regardless of the facts and figures around that issue

You've just made this bit up.


I don't see anything unbalanced in his argument, it's just different from yours, but as so often happens on here if your view goes against the government someone like yourself or beefy will come along and try and dismiss his argument saying it is unbalanced, that we have a chip on our shoulers, we hate the tories :blah::blah::blah:

Not at all. I'm more than open for debate and I have no allegiance to any political party. I was merely pointing out that constantly using hyperbole or mis information to make a point was not particularly useful...examples would be:

"Party of the few, not of the many. And when they're in power it's best not to be old or sick."
"200,000 children forced into poverty by Tory policies"
"deliberately consigning 200,000 children to poverty is a sin"

Plus the repeated use (and mis quote) of Lord Youngs comments as evidence of government policy despite the fact that Cameron called them "offensive" and "inaccurate" which were swiftly followed by Young withdrawing the remark and resigning




It is quite possible to disagree with a government policy just because you disagree with that policy rather than you think the tories are evil. (Even if they are evil)

Of course it is and I certainly don't agree with every policy from any government and I am more than happy to debate policies on their relative merits..however I think you have made my point by your last comment in brackets...how can you hold a balanced debate when you hold a belief that a party which was elected via one of the oldest democratic systems and in a country with one of the freest presses in the world is intrinsically evil.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I said the measure was unreliable. I firmly believe it is and anyone who understands the current measures of relative and absolte poverty used to complile these stats would admit that they are far from a perfect measure.

That clearly does not equal "change the measurement then it will all be fine"

So would you change the measurement or not?




You have lost me here...where was I claiming facts? I was merely pointing out that the IFS had themsleves admitted that the figure was based on certain assumptions. I then suggested that the measurement that this estimate was using to provide the headline figure was in itself somewhat unreliable. The quote from the Guardian was used to support that supposition.

Ok I'll accept that


You've just made this bit up.

No it's my opinion

Not at all. I'm more than open for debate and I have no allegiance to any political party. I was merely pointing out that constantly using hyperbole or mis information to make a point was not particularly useful...examples would be:

"Party of the few, not of the many. And when they're in power it's best not to be old or sick."
"200,000 children forced into poverty by Tory policies"
"deliberately consigning 200,000 children to poverty is a sin"

Plus the repeated use (and mis quote) of Lord Youngs comments as evidence of government policy despite the fact that Cameron called them "offensive" and "inaccurate" which were swiftly followed by Young withdrawing the remark and resigning

The comments are above are accurate though, just because you don't agree doesn't make them any less true





Of course it is and I certainly don't agree with every policy from any government and I am more than happy to debate policies on their relative merits..however I think you have made my point by your last comment in brackets...how can you hold a balanced debate when you hold a belief that a party which was elected via one of the oldest democratic systems and in a country with one of the freest presses in the world is intrinsically evil.

Hook line and sinker


Answers above

[RyeSloan]

I've already stated a number of times that I believe the current measures of poverty as unreliable. Using an arbitary 60% of average income measurement is a very crude measure and ensures that there will ALWAYS be people described as being in poverty no matter how high average incomes go.

That in no way adds up to your assertion that I stated "change the measurement then it will all be fine".

You believe MA's commets are 'accurate' and 'true'...my whole point was that they were based on an estimate, an estimate the IFS themselves proclaimed contained considerable uncertainty so to then repeatedly use them to put forward points steeped in emotive language like forcing children into poverty and commiting sins does little to add to the debate.

Loved the 'hook line and sinker' though. Classic. :rolleyes:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I've already stated a number of times that I believe the current measures of poverty as unreliable. Using an arbitary 60% of average income measurement is a very crude measure and ensures that there will ALWAYS be people described as being in poverty no matter how high average incomes go.

That in no way adds up to your assertion that I stated "change the measurement then it will all be fine".

You believe MA's commets are 'accurate' and 'true'...my whole point was that they were based on an estimate, an estimate the IFS themselves proclaimed contained considerable uncertainty so to then repeatedly use them to put forward points steeped in emotive language like forcing children into poverty and commiting sins does little to add to the debate.

Loved the 'hook line and sinker' though. Classic. :rolleyes:

Ok so you don't believe in the current measurement, you would like it changed. We are getting somewhere now.

Emotion will always come out in these sort of discussions because it affects peoples lives, so people get worked up about it. To say that if you do that then it's wrong is in itself wrong. Nowt wrong with a bit of emotion.

The bottom line is the tories are putting a lot of people out of work, taking benefits away from a lot of people and lowering the quality of life of a lot of people. You can argue over the semantics of what defines poverty all night long but it won't change the above.

[Mibbes Aye]

SiMar, did the IFS actually describe their figures as having "considerable uncertainty", or was that someone else, like the Treasury?

I'm astonished at the criticism of the poverty measure (by the way SiMar, it's based on median income, which although a kind of average is a bit more nuanced than the mean average, which is what most would first assume was meant by 'average'). I say I'm astonished because while all these measures are open to debate, this one is used by the OECD and the EU. Maybe some of our posters on here can offer a discourse on why the OECD is wrong and they are right? I'm always willing to have my view swung by a good, reasoned case :greengrin

Once again however, it seems to be the same old story. Respected thinktank points out the impact Tory policies have on the poor. Tory defenders on here make no attempt to rationalise this in terms of policy but instead fall back on the tried and trusted responses.

Obviously the one where Gordon Brown is blamed for being worse can't be used in this case. It's heartening however to see the old "Some posters have just got it in for the Tories" one being rolled out again.

I asked if this wasn't deliberate, then what new policies might be deployed in order to mitigate it. No answer. No attempt at an answer. Because there are no policy responses to mitigate it because it was done knowingly - it's perfectly clear that you can't implement the sort of measures the Tories are without hitting the most vulnerable hardest.

People are getting worse-off under the Tories. And you don't need to have the expertise of IDS to see that the poorest are paying a high price.

Cameron and Clegg said those with the broadest shoulders would bear the greater burden. Children don't have very broad shoulders, not even when there's 200,000 of them.

[Leicester Fan]

People are getting worse-off under the Tories. And you don't need to have the expertise of IDS to see that the poorest are paying a high price.



People are going to get worse off in the next year or two, that is an inevitable consequence of living beyond our means for a decade. Budgets have to be cut and taxes have to rise.

You can pretend that we could go on spending like before, though I doubt if you actually believe that, but every pound we borrow this year has to be paid back with interest for years to come.If we weren't already paying hundreds of millions a day in interest most of these cuts would not be needed.

As for people on benefits, do you really think it's moral that people on the dole should be better off than people at work? Do you really think it's good for society that there are generations of the same families living on benefits indefinitely with no incentive to change?

[Mibbes Aye]

People are going to get worse off in the next year or two, that is an inevitable consequence of living beyond our means for a decade. Budgets have to be cut and taxes have to rise.

You can pretend that we could go on spending like before, though I doubt if you actually believe that, but every pound we borrow this year has to be paid back with interest for years to come.If we weren't already paying hundreds of millions a day in interest most of these cuts would not be needed.

As for people on benefits, do you really think it's moral that people on the dole should be better off than people at work? Do you really think it's good for society that there are generations of the same families living on benefits indefinitely with no incentive to change?

I don't think any of your post actually addresses what you quoted me on - namely that the poor and weak are bearing the brunt. Which is a complete contradiction of what Cameron and Clegg promised.

Even Vince Cable thinks they're going too far, too quickly. Why don't you? :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

SiMar, did the IFS actually describe their figures as having "considerable uncertainty", or was that someone else, like the Treasury?


How about this direct quote from the report:

This exercise is necessarily subject to uncertainties and limitations.
Macroeconomic forecasts such as those we make use of here are always highly
uncertain, and this is probably especially true at present; we cannot fully
account for the impacts of behavioural changes that result from tax and benefit
reforms; and the underlying survey data used are, of course, subject to sampling
error.


Seems to me then that considering this is from the reports author you should be very careful when using the stats in the report and, unlike the way you have represented them, are not anything like fact or certain.

[Mibbes Aye]

How about this direct quote from the report:

This exercise is necessarily subject to uncertainties and limitations.
Macroeconomic forecasts such as those we make use of here are always highly
uncertain, and this is probably especially true at present; we cannot fully
account for the impacts of behavioural changes that result from tax and benefit
reforms; and the underlying survey data used are, of course, subject to sampling
error.


Seems to me then that you should be very careful in using the stats in the report and, unlike the way you have represented them, are not anything like fact or certain.

The bit you've highlighted is them talking about macroeconomic forecasts, which is one source of evidence for some of the broader projections.

So just so we're clear, the IFS didn't describe their figures on child poverty as having 'considerable uncertainty', like what you said they did? Twice :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

I'm astonished at the criticism of the poverty measure (by the way SiMar, it's based on median income, which although a kind of average is a bit more nuanced than the mean average, which is what most would first assume was meant by 'average'). I say I'm astonished because while all these measures are open to debate, this one is used by the OECD and the EU. Maybe some of our posters on here can offer a discourse on why the OECD is wrong and they are right? I'm always willing to have my view swung by a good, reasoned case :greengrin


Oh please...astonished..really? :rolleyes:

Who said the measure was 'wrong'...I said it was unreliable. You know just as well as I do that there is a huge debate on how to measure 'poverty' and there has been for some time.

This LINK (http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/2277.pdf) may well be quite old but gives a taste of the issues involved.

[RyeSloan]

The bit you've highlighted is them talking about macroeconomic forecasts, which is one source of evidence for some of the broader projections.

So just so we're clear, the IFS didn't describe their figures on child poverty as having 'considerable uncertainty', like what you said they did? Twice :greengrin

Lets be VERY clear. They say the following:

This exercise is necessarily subject to uncertainties and limitations.

Followed by:

This exercise is necessarily subject to much uncertainty.

Followed by:

As always with survey data, there is likely to be sampling error in the FRS from year to year. This will affect the base data that underlie our projections and the
future HBAI measures of poverty that we are trying to forecast. But there
are other (probably greater) sources of uncertainty here


Is that clear enough for you?

[Mibbes Aye]

Oh please...astonished..really? :rolleyes:

Who said the measure was 'wrong'...I said it was unreliable. You know just as well as I do that there is a huge debate on how to measure 'poverty' and there has been for some time.

This LINK (http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/2277.pdf) may well be quite old but gives a taste of the issues involved.

:agree:

The thing that interests me is how we have reverted to some of the arguments from Victorian times. It happened to an extent under Thatcher and can be seen to be happening again, though in different ways.

It's a broad generalisation but the initial period was one of great transformation through industrialisation; the latter two (or one if you combine them) coming in a period of great transformation through ICT.

Perhaps there's an argument that rapid social change creates the social issues that lead to these differing narratives emerging (hence why there was no need/appetite for dry right policies through the post-war consensus for example?

Alternatively, I might just be slavering :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Lets be VERY clear. They say the following:

This exercise is necessarily subject to uncertainties and limitations.

Followed by:

This exercise is necessarily subject to much uncertainty.

Followed by:

As always with survey data, there is likely to be sampling error in the FRS from year to year. This will affect the base data that underlie our projections and the
future HBAI measures of poverty that we are trying to forecast. But there
are other (probably greater) sources of uncertainty here


Is that clear enough for you?

:agree:

They didn't say what you said they said. Twice. :aok:

[RyeSloan]

:agree:

The thing that interests me is how we have reverted to some of the arguments from Victorian times. It happened to an extent under Thatcher and can be seen to be happening again, though in different ways.

It's a broad generalisation but the initial period was one of great transformation through industrialisation; the latter two (or one if you combine them) coming in a period of great transformation through ICT.

Perhaps there's an argument that rapid social change creates the social issues that lead to these differing narratives emerging (hence why there was no need/appetite for dry right policies through the post-war consensus for example?

Alternatively, I might just be slavering :greengrin

The thought had crossed my mind :wink:

Point remains though that I think your 'astonishment' may have been ever so slightly faux. :greengrin

[Prof. Shaggy]

What part of 'there is no money' do you people not get?

Actually, there's plenty of money. Just someone else has it.

[RyeSloan]

:agree:

They didn't say what you said they said. Twice. :aok:

:greengrin :greengrin

That's why I clarified for you...the direct quotes from the report are:

subject to uncertainties and limitations.

much uncertainty

likely to be sampling error

other....sources of uncertainty


If all of that doesn't equal considerable uncertainty then I'm not sure what does, so you are correct in your point of order in that nowhere in the report does it say considerable it in fact says "much" but you are not kidding anyone by focussing on that.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Actually, there's plenty of money. Just someone else has it.

is it you thats got our money ya bas!!!!

[Green Mikey]

I'm astonished at the criticism of the poverty measure (by the way SiMar, it's based on median income, which although a kind of average is a bit more nuanced than the mean average, which is what most would first assume was meant by 'average'). I say I'm astonished because while all these measures are open to debate, this one is used by the OECD and the EU. Maybe some of our posters on here can offer a discourse on why the OECD is wrong and they are right? I'm always willing to have my view swung by a good, reasoned case :greengrin

I think that you need understand the difference between Median and Mean. The mean (average) in this case is the sum of all incomes divided by number of observations. The median is NOT a kind of average, it is the middle value in a distribution.

Sorry to be pedantic but when the accuracy of statistics is being debated I think it's important that the measures being discussed are properly understood.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think that you need understand the difference between Median and Mean. The mean (average) in this case is the sum of all incomes divided by number of observations. The median is NOT a kind of average, it is the middle value in a distribution.

Sorry to be pedantic but when the accuracy of statistics is being debated I think it's important that the measures being discussed are properly understood.

aye cos thats crystal clear:faf:

[Mibbes Aye]

I think that you need understand the difference between Median and Mean. The mean (average) in this case is the sum of all incomes divided by number of observations. The median is NOT a kind of average, it is the middle value in a distribution.

Sorry to be pedantic but when the accuracy of statistics is being debated I think it's important that the measures being discussed are properly understood.

That's quite alright :greengrin

I was aware of what the median is but didn't realise it was a stats faux pas to refer to it as a type of 'average', even though that's commonplace.

Can see why that isn't an accurate description though :agree:

[Prof. Shaggy]

is it you thats got our money ya bas!!!!

Ah've no got anybody's money.

Ah've no even got ma money.:boo hoo: