None of it was part of the manifesto. This is Labours proposals for further devolved powers. Come 2016 the SLP will produce a full manifesto for the Holyrood elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Printable View
None of it was part of the manifesto. This is Labours proposals for further devolved powers. Come 2016 the SLP will produce a full manifesto for the Holyrood elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
This isnt the No side though this is the Labour party who arent in a position to decide otherwise and it appears until recently that they hadnt considered any of these increased devolved powers they now say they are keen on. Was it Blair that called the Scottish Parliament a 'Parish council'?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
And if the 2015 General Election is won by the Tories, can you tell me how many of the proposals will come to fruition?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Would you also argue that much of the White Paper isn't the Yes side but is SNP policy? I don't really care what Blair said in a sound bite, his Government actually delivered devolution. Just a pity that they didn't really understand the reality of it once they had.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
What do you think of the actual proposals? I assume you have had time to go them in detail, it will take me a while to consider them but at least it's something worthy of considering. It will be interesting to see what the Tories come out with because I suspect they may go even further.
Possibly another huge boost for the Yes campaign? - is the font used on today's "6 months" signage the same as the one used on the "Rangers FC" sign on the Govan stand roof at Ibrox? :greengrin:stirrer:
None but as you've belittled them you won't be bothered. The Tories are going to publish their proposals in the next couple of months but god knows what they will come up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
It strikes me as over-complicated tinkering around the margins. Very Gordon Brown, wonder how much of a hand he had in this?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
The Lib Dem proposals from old Ming the not especially Merciless seem much more coherent but unfortunately their Tory dalliance has left them looking like electoral snowballs in hell.
How many of the SNP promises will come to fruition if Labour win the first post-independence election?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Another blow to the SNPs plans to cut corporation tax
http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/...ce=twitterfeed
No I havent just very cynical of these new plans being raised which appear to be on the hoof.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I would think none. I'd still be delighted though as we would have won the yes vote to a new beginning. I'm voting yes for an independent scotland, not for the snp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
That wasn't really the point you were making when you were attempting to dismiss Labour's proposals though. I don't recall you dismissing the SNP White Paper quite so readily, despite it being arguably more unlikely to have a chance of implementation than the Labour stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Having had some time to digest what's on offer from 'Scottish Labour' would it be safe to say that you got this wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
You can call it a lot of things but one thing's for sure it certainly is not Devo Max.
One other thing, as they will be responsible for implementing this 'half baked' proposal, can I ask if the recommendations will be included in the UK Labour Party's 2015 General Election manifesto?
Nailed:
Strange days when you're awaiting the Tory proposals with more interest. :rolleyes:Quote:
Ben Thomson, chairman of the Devo Plus thinktank, which has Labour, Lib Dem and Tory membership, said he was deeply disappointed by the new proposals and said it remained unclear how Labour believed the limited tax devolution was equal to 40% of Holyrood's spending.
It would not make Scottish politicians accountable enough for the money they spend, he said. "It's just tinkering with the current system," Thomson said. "It's just lip service towards real devolved powers. The SNP will benefit from this; they will just say that the unionist parties aren't interested in real devolution."
It will be part of the UK labour manifesto if accepted by this weekend Scottish conferenceQuote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Labour went with these proposals as we would still receive funding from Westminster through the Barnett formula. There has been much debate within the party over tax and how much should be devolved. Personally I believe it's a fudge and I would have gone further but others were against this. We shall have a full debate on this on FridayQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
So you 'jumped the gun' with the Devo Max line?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Provided we vote No, are you sure this will form part of the 2015 UK Labour Party GE manifesto?
I could be wrong but my understanding is that this is a proposal for the 2016 Scottish Election.
Whatever way you look at it, it's a complete dog's breakfast and only goes as far as tinkering around the edges. If you want confirmation of this you should take a look at Gordon Brewer interviewing Johann Lamont on Newsnight last night. This from a woman who aspires to be Scotland's FM!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...nd_18_03_2014/
My favourite bit:-
BREWER: What if Ed Balls should become Chancellor of the Exchequer and he says “Right, I’m going to put the top rate up to 50p”, can the Scottish Parliament say no, we’re not going to do that, we’ll just keep it at 45p?
LAMONT: I wouldn’t have thought so.
Did not jump the gun on the Devo max, it is actually described as such in the document. If the SLP conference votes to accept the SEC recommendation then it will be part of the UK manifesto in 2015.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
On a side note, unite the union have decided to stay neutral. I would say that's more disappointing for the NO campaign as Unite are a Labour affiliated union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
You sound a smidgen pissed off with the lack of commitment shown by the Labour Party?
Maybe you should drop the Better Together link, seize the opportunity and vote Yes :greengrin.
I'm a democrat and accept collective responsibility. When we engage in these processes you seldom get everything you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Joking aside Labour have done a decent job on this considering there are many within the party that did not want further devolution. I took the decision to vote no based on my head not my heart. As I have said previously there are too many questions unanswered to take a risk with a yes vote. Some of that is my pathological hatred of the Nats. Been involved in too many campaigns over decades to change that.
The point on the SLP devo nano document was to show how they have back tracked from their interim reports, maybe someone from Westminster told them to pipe down. On the white paper, still digesting it thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
So when I point out the changes from the interim report to the final document its belittling it. I would say back tracking would be more appropriate. Westminster labour have had their day.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
It's an internal labour document so changes were always going to happen. But your wrong if you think Westminster is finished. The bookies the polls and commentators are saying a No vote is likely to win. The trouble with being a separatist is that you and your kind can't / won't see the benefits of devolutionQuote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Care to elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
I am not a member of any political party and have looked at how the country has been run in both Scotland since Devolution, and the UK. I prefer to be given a shot at doing it for ourselves.
On the subject of Devolution, I've seen benefits and can see no harm in pushing it further. If you want to take your pocket money from Gideon and Co, that's your prerogative. I wouldn't hold out much hope of getting into power in any parliament any time soon.
Quite the opposite. We've always seen it as a means of Scotland gaining confidence on the road to independence. It's done a grand job. Labour is very late to the devolution party. If it hadn't have been for Sillars winning Govan in '88 I do wonder when you would have got round to it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
P.S. love the "you and your kind" comment - are we still a virus?:greengrin
You maybe want to rethink the Labour late to devolution line. A wee bit silly given that Labour were ever presents in the Scottish Constituonal Convention which lead directly to the creation of the devolved Scottish government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
You really need the channel that Hatred bud.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
No, I'll stick by it. The Scottish Constitutional Convention kicked up in the wake of Sillars winning Govan.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
People really need to forget about hating the SNP and vote on whether they think Independence is good for Scotland.
Salmond's an erse and I expect him to be voted out of a job at the earliest opportunity (only if Labour get a more credible leader mind you) that interview the other day along with her stupid performance against Sturgeon a few weeks back have done Lamont irreparable damage IMO.
Nope, it evolved from the ashes of the failed '79 referundum. And Sillars had little to do with it. Like it or not Labour delivered devolution. Saying they are late to the Devo party is simply not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by BroxburnHibee
The only thing she's missing is a half dozen clothes pegs in her mouth.
If that's the best Labour leader Scotland can come up with then God help us in Westminster or Holyrood, where'er the future lies.
Sturgeon was just as bad as Lamont when they went head to head. In some ways she was worse as she was always going to look slicker in a TV setting yet she failed to add any meaningful arguments to the Yes side. Very disappointing, I admire both of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BroxburnHibee
Anyway... I can't stand the SNP but will be voting YES. I really hope they disappear for good after Independence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Sorry, I don't agree. Labour's lack of commitment to devolution led to the failure of the 79 referendum that you mention. The party was hopelessly split on the issue then and in the years after. The Campaign for a Scottish Assembly did not have full support from the party, and there were many in Labour strenuously anti. The CSA was barely a movement, either. The first march I ever went on was with them and I was almost embarrassed at how few of us were there.
Devolution was a fringe topic for Labour in the '80s. Sillars won Govan and all hell broke lose. The Constitutional Convention was formed the next again year, so it's not right to say it evolved from the 79 referendum.
My take on all of this is from growing up through the 80s, despairing of Labour's lack of interest in pressing the Scottish agenda. I might be doing you a dis-service assuming that you are old enough to remember it too (:greengrin). Perhaps we just took different impressions of what was going on?
As for delivery, Labour delivered the vote - it was the Scottish people that delivered the result.
I agree with you entirely. Sturgeon came over as smug and over confident.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I was very disappointed with the performance of all three of the women on that programme.
Catfight.
A good opportunity to put my cards on the table while we debate Labour's 1980s devolution policy (we really do need to get out more!). I have always supported the SNP because I support independence. I am a member for that reason. I am really enjoying the Yes campaign because I don't need to be party political. If you get your wish after independence I'll not greet my eyes out.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Neither of them got any credit from that performance but for me Sturgeon at least gave some answers when called on but it was hard to hear it with all the cackling going on. Lamont's whole tactic was clearly to disrupt the whole thing as often as she could (and as a Labour voter my whole life I found it pathetic). This is the woman that won 'Debater of the year' last year!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
That Newsnight interview was frankly ridiculous and I'm afraid it will be used again and again to beat her up. Gordon Brewer could hardly believe his ears.
I can't stand Salmond but I don't think the SNP will wilt away after Independence. Sturgeon will get the leadership soon enough once the referendum is over and will be a force to reckon with in Scottish politics for many years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hainan Hibs
Fair comments. We have a different perception of what went on . At least we agree on the right way to vote in September.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
The SNP are like the Tories during the war years. They've been voted in to get a job done and will be launched on completion.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Never paid much attention tae these things, canvass returns on the other hand.....:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
:tee hee:
Latest Panelbase (conducted 7-14 March, ex don't knows and changes versus prior Panelbase poll):
Yes 47 (+3)
No 53 (-3)
Interesting. :wink:
I more or less agree. Especially Salmond.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Pretty tragic that short term considerations like Fat Eck's smug pus being around a few more years or the campaign tribalism of Labour's Nat bashers might deprive of us of a once in a lifetime chance to be a proper country that gets on with sorting itself out. Sigh.
Who do you think was, in the main, responsible for delivering this 'once in a lifetime chance'?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Answer - the SNP led by Alex Salmond.
Never before have Scots had the oppourtunity to vote on their own sovereignty and the best you can do is refer to Salmond as Fat Eck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
The rhetoric you're using suggests to me you're losing the agrument.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Why would you hate 'Nats'. I'm a Nationalist. You've never met me, but yet you have pathological hatred towards me???
Can't see any benefits in getting a few more crumbs of power handed to the Scottish parliament every four years from whoever is in charge at Westminster.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
This is our chance to get what we vote for, who we vote for and total control of our finances.
Just listened to that. She is truly awful didnt have a clue. Scotland can raise the top rate of tax but not lower the rates. Dear oh dear.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Really, dear oh dear. So if independence would benefit Scotland and its communities you wouldnt vote for it because of a pathological hatred of the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Not lost any arguments on here about the separatist agenda but I've use over the top rhetoric similar to what is used by Hibs fans about Hearts in describing the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Jeezo - it's only the interweb! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
I personally don't buy the super-astute Salmond myth (see unpardonable folly, penny-for-Scotland) and let's face it he doesn't have much to compete against in Holyrood. I also find him hard to like due to the aforementioned smugness factor. I have submitted myself to rigorous self appraisal just to check I'm not letting anti-Hearts bias creep in.
I'm not sure you can attribute a "no" vote stance to your head having made the decision if it's partly based on a pathological hatred of something.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
I trust that self appraisal did indeed find that the fact he's a fat Jambo does indeed have a weighting in ones consideration :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Lucky, I was hoping you would respond to my request for you to elaborate on "Me and my Kind". Any thoughts now you've had a night to think about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Meanwhile back on track. Johann might want to go back to skool.
http://reformscotland.com/index.php/...s/details/2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Nail, hammer, heid
http://i58.tinypic.com/w8xmop.gifQuote:
"The report is clearly motivated more by short-term referendum politics than a real desire for significant further devolution.”
Sorry to pick up an old post, but I'm inclined to think that a very likely (and worst case scenario IMHO) is that we have a 48/49% yes vote which doesn't resolve the issue and we're debating for another five years before going to the polls again (and voting yes - which I think is inevitable now at some point)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Better Together parties all now falling over themselves to come up with further devo plans - most of them just smoke and mirrors. Is the No poll lead softer than they'd like to tell us it is?
Don't know what sort of answer you want or expect. Certainly not even thought about it and was not aware that you were waiting overnight for a response. But it's fairly simple You and your kind--- separatists/ nationalists. Hope thus helps you sleep😄 won't be responding for a few days as I'm away to Perth for the weekend. Mixture of party conference and HibsQuote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
No chance. As a nation, we can't have a damaging debate and the associated uncertainty of this kind every five years. Presumably if it's 51/49 in favour of indpendence, you wouldn't expect a poll on rejoining the union in five years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple & Green
If there's a 'no', there may well be a future referendum but it won't be for a long long time. Whatever the result, it should be final in the medium term. Folk on the losing side are just going to have to suck it up and get on with making the best of whatever we decide.
I think this is a one off vote, or at best , a once in a generation vote. The convoluted voting system we were given will see that. Barring a huge scandal hitting 3 of the parties in Scottish politics , we will have coalition governments for some time to come. Even as the votes were being counted at the last election the political analysts were still predicting a coalition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple & Green
Hopefully no need though and the YES campaign wins.
A bit of fun but it's only funny because like most good gags there's an element of truth in there.
http://longtermplan.org.uk/
Shamelessly stolen from Atomheartfather on Facebook :greengrin
:aok: Used!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
:tee hee: Thanks for your reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
I was just wanting to see how the labour party activists were going to get me back onboard having voted labour for many years, only to find that we are now hated for deciding to vote for someone else.
I look forward to when the local labour party knock on my door in East Lothian:aok:
I wish I could have caught you before you left for perth as I had a wee calculator for Johann you could have dropped off.
Next time maybe with a 40% discount:aok:
Brilliant...Stolen:aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
Henry kens whit the score is...Stop all the Hating:greengrin
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politic...-snp-1-3350246
He does raise an interesting question there. We pretty much know what direction we will move in if Scotland votes yes but where do we go if it votes no? So many permutations depending on who wins the next UK election.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
I agree, I think it's put up or shut up time. I'd go further and suggest that if people continue to see us as a nation, rather than a region, after a no vote, they are out of order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
If we vote no, we vote for the UK. We should take our place, in the queue with the English regions.
Ah, you reckon I don't pop in to this thread anymore, Paul? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
PS:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...omist.23757346
If I vote no, it'll be for Scotland to remain within the UK. Everyone's entitled to their own reasoning behind their decision though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
Interesting that you try to play off "nation" against "region" as if they were black and white. What of the Europe of the Regions debate? Or that related issue subsidiarity? In reality, the referendum has got little to do with economic viability - where on the scale of economic competence do you put Westminster governance, I wonder - and everything to do with power struggles. Of the three centres of power that affect our lives most - Brussels, London and Edinburgh - there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the most damaging is London, and the over-arching power of the City. Anything that reduces their influence has to be welcomed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
Knew you'd be sniffing around at some point Richard, that's why I gave you credit. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by atomheartfather
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Good points, thanks for the responses.:aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by atomheartfather
Last night the following Scottish Labour MP's voted hand in hand with the Tories for the benefits cap. Along with their failure to vote against the bedroom tax when they had the opportunity recently.
Shame on them.
Margaret Curran – Glasgow East
Tom Greatrex – Rutherglen and Hamilton West
Ian Murray – Edinburgh South
Willie Bain – Glasgow North East
Gordon Banks – Ochil and South Perthshire
Tom Clarke – Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill
Dame Anne Begg – Aberdeen South
Alistair Darling – Edinburgh South West
Ian Davidson – Glasgow South West
Thomas Docherty – Dunfermline and west Fife
Frank Doran – Aberdeen North
Gemma Doyle – West Dunbartonshire
Sheila Gilmore – Edinburgh East
David Hamilton – Midlothian
Tom Harris – Glasgow South
Jimmy Hood – Lanark and Hamilton East
Cathy Jamieson – Kilmarnock and Loudon
Mark Lazarowicz – Edinburgh North and Leith
Gregg McClymont – Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East
Anne McGuire – Stirling
Anne McKechin – Glasgow North
Iain McKenzie – Greeenock and Inverclyde
Grahame Morris – Livingston
Jim Murphy – East Renfrewshire
Pamela Nash – Airdrie and Shotts
Sandra Osborne – Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
John Robertson – Glasgow North West
Frank Roy – Motherwell and Wishaw
Lindsay Roy – Glenrothes
Anas Sarwar – Glasgow Central
Sarwar, Lazarovic, Murphy and Alistair Darling conspicuous by their inclusion. I get deluged with emails from my MP Ian Murray anyway; im going to reply to him this morning and asked him what his rationalefor supporting the benefits cap was.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
It's estimated this'll push around 345,000 people in the UK into poverty. Food bank use has increased to around 500,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Better Together = shrugging your shoulders and accepting the above, accepting nothing can be done, or hoping under the current system somehow it'll work out. There's no way the people we entrust with power at Westminster are fit for purpose anymore.
Every one of us and our families are all only one injury or illness away from needing benefits. Something we should all remember when we stand in that ballot box in September.
Puts the "Tartan Tories" jibe into a bit of a different light. :rolleyes:
Latest Westminster polling shows Milliband has blown his lead and they are now neck and neck with the Tories in intentions for the 2015 GE.
Vote No at your peril! :shocked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Why would they vote for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Probably to pay for the 11% increase for themselves which was voted through without any problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Simply because they think the electorate like to see a hard line taken on benefit spending. It's not for them to try and understand why so many people are on benefits in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
It's an absolute tradegy that the UK is the most unequal country in the Western World.
Whether you support Scottish Independence or not, I think it's fair to say that successive Westminster Governments have failed the poor in our society.
Meanwhile, if the Goverment actually tried collecting the taxes it should, benefit payments wouldn't be such a big issue :grr:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/blogs/2013/0...xtreme-poverty
I agree. Unfortunately, polling shows that the argument has been lost, and a majority of Britons believe that we are being bled dry by a lazy underclass. Which is hardly surprising when you consider the diet of popular tv and newspapers over recent years. The point of the left shoupd be to make a case for what you believe in regardless of short term polling. Tom Watson and Dianne Abbott were two of the measly 11 Labour MPs not to support the Tories. Sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Utter garbage. The Yes campaign have been consistently outwitted on all the questions that the voter is asking so they're making up their own ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
I agree. And the devolved Governments in Scotland have been just as negligent.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Can someone tell what benefits will be able in an independent Scotland and how much any will we be able to claim and how are we going to pay for it?
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26743802 Labour plan to freeze the benefit at the present levels for 3 years. But don't let the truth get in the way of your story. Parliament voted 520 to 22 to cap benefits.
Some homework. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
http://www.yesscotland.net/news/fina...-what-it-takes
http://newsnetscotland.com Click on the fact sheet on the left for an overview.
Hope this helps, but there's lots more info on the Bella Caledonia and Wings over Scotland sites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
We should add this lot in for good measure.
http://agirlcalledjack.com/2013/11/1...tion-expenses/
The answer is that we don't know how we'd pay for what Salmond is promising and neither does he. We are looking at a multi-billion pound deficit between what Salmond proposes to raise and what he proposes to spend so we have literally no clue how we'd pay for it or even what his plan B is in terms of currency!Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
We're less than six months away from the referendum and the SNP can't even answer the most basic questions about the promises they've put in their glorified Argos catalogue wish list of a white paper.
Or maybe it's just that you don't understand how. Have you read the white paper.? And incidentally there is a plan B, but it's still too early to play that card, but it concerns national debt v assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
I have read the white paper from start to finish.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
It's nothing more than a glorified wish list.
What are you going to do if there's a Yes vote? Genuinely interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
Great answer, NOT. Why do separatists continue to use separatists websites to back up their arguments. The White paper is the SNP's manifesto. It actually mentions Strictly come Dancing more times than it references the Scottish whiskey industry. It's a waste of Scottish tax payers moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
If I'd been lied to and cheated in any other relationship then that relationship would be terminated on those grounds alone. The Union is no different.
This made me laugh. I suppose this explains why there is swing to Yes in the polls, because voters are not getting answers to the questions asked of the Yes campaign they're moving across to Yes ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
As to debt and spending, can you take the time to post some stats on how well this has been managed by successive UK Governments. I guess we must be in black are we? I guess we raise more than we spend do we? You're the Unionist, lets have some figures from you for a change. Would be genuinely interested to see your take on the state of UK finances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
At least it spells whisky correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Apologies for the Daily Racist front page below, but panic seems to be setting in.
Attachment 12265
Did you find out what cuts Johann is going ahead with from her cuts commission? Free tuition fees? Prescription charges? free bus passes? Raising taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Which is it going to be?
http://news.stv.tv/politics/191807-l...thing-culture/
No panic here. Yes has the momentumQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Interesting article this...I wonder what the polls would be saying if we had taken this approach?
http://moneyweek.com/merryns-blog/sc...less-question/
:agree:Children.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-9217442.html
Surely the point of the cap is to highlight the fact that poverty cannot be eradicated by forever increasing the cost of benefits to the nation?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Child poverty should of course be taken very seriously but to suggest it can and should be removed by using benefits as the main tool is a mistaken one I would say.
I've not seen the analysis completed to come up with the 345,000 number but not sure how an alleged 2.5% savings requirement on the benefits bill would mean a 10-15% (depending in what measure you take) increase in child poverty....not saying its wrong just not always desperate to immediately believe projected figures that have used an unknown model calc to be arrived at.
Poverty measures and the reason for poverty are a complex field yet within days of an announcement we seem to have these figures banded about as a truth. I'm left wondering what inflation figures they have used, what wage inflation figures were applied, what GDP Growth assumptions were used, what the employment and unemployment rates assumptions were etc etc to get to their answers....and even if we knew all of that would we have any idea of how likely the prediction is to come true?
The same works in reverse of course so a healthy scepticism of government assurances etc should always be maintained as well...
its a fair point actuallyQuote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
Disappointed I only got 1 bite with that but hey ho :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory