Friday 16th October 2015

Post by **refitman** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 7:11 am

Morning all.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 7:27 am

Just caught the tail end of last night's discussion regarding the woman who voted Tory in tears on Question Time, I had an early night so I missed it.

There is a report here however http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ha ... ul-6643284" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chunkymark aka Artist Taxi Driver referred to it too this morning.

I must be getting harder in my old age, I can garner no sympathy whatsoever, what the feck did she expect ?

Did she cry over the people being evicted over the Bedroom Tax when she put her cross in the Conservative box on the ballot sheet ?

Or the sick & disabled who are losing thousands of pounds every day.

Rudd looked like she couldn't give a toss anyway, but I can't understand how anyone who trusts and votes for these monsters gets upset when they bite.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 8:37 am

Morning all.

Re the lady on QT. I think she was duped like so many people at the last election. The Tories did a right number - ably abetted and massively amplified by the media - on scaring people about economic chaos if Labour got in. Labour did not / were unable to strongly counter that message especially after not having countered the 'mess we left behind narrative' and with some key people appearing to go along with the 'we spent too much and that crashed the economy' line.

From door knocking I am reminded of how little attention most people pay to politics in the way we do here ... they simply don't follow the ins and outs and detail. It's much harder for them to get an understanding of what's what at election times - unless they get very strong, clear messages for a duration that they can relate to - and that's certainly what the Conservatives did. Labour didn't - it chopped and changed and was over reactive rather than assertive.

I can't feel too hard on this lady - she thought she was doing the right thing for her family. She now knows she wasn't - and she and her children will suffer. We want and need people like her to vote Labour next time.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 8:51 am

I mentioned it to Owen Jones, although i don't think i was chastising. i can't get to grips with how working people such as this lady could trust the malicious bastards. Maybe better political education is the key.

: ScreenShot00867.jpg (51.26 KiB) Viewed 9473 times

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 8:52 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning all.

Re the lady on QT. I think she was duped like so many people at the last election. The Tories did a right number - ably abetted and massively amplified by the media - on scaring people about economic chaos if Labour got in. Labour did not / were unable to strongly counter that message especially after not having countered the 'mess we left behind narrative' and with some key people appearing to go along with the 'we spent too much and that crashed the economy' line.

From door knocking I am reminded of how little attention most people pay to politics in the way we do here ... they simply don't follow the ins and outs and detail. It's much harder for them to get an understanding of what's what at election times - unless they get very strong, clear messages for a duration that they can relate to - and that's certainly what the Conservatives did. Labour didn't - it chopped and changed and was over reactive rather than assertive.

I can't feel too hard on this lady - she thought she was doing the right thing for her family. She now knows she wasn't - and she and her children will suffer. We want and need people like her to vote Labour next time.

We've listened, this time it'll be different says Osborne in 2020...

With regards blaming Labour, what do people think is the shelf life for the Mess We Inherited line?

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 8:54 am

She went from one extreme to the other in 29 seconds

: ScreenShot00863.jpg (20.24 KiB) Viewed 9469 times

: ScreenShot00865.jpg (30.53 KiB) Viewed 9469 times

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 8:59 am

StephenDolan wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning all.

Re the lady on QT. I think she was duped like so many people at the last election. The Tories did a right number - ably abetted and massively amplified by the media - on scaring people about economic chaos if Labour got in. Labour did not / were unable to strongly counter that message especially after not having countered the 'mess we left behind narrative' and with some key people appearing to go along with the 'we spent too much and that crashed the economy' line.

From door knocking I am reminded of how little attention most people pay to politics in the way we do here ... they simply don't follow the ins and outs and detail. It's much harder for them to get an understanding of what's what at election times - unless they get very strong, clear messages for a duration that they can relate to - and that's certainly what the Conservatives did. Labour didn't - it chopped and changed and was over reactive rather than assertive.

I can't feel too hard on this lady - she thought she was doing the right thing for her family. She now knows she wasn't - and she and her children will suffer. We want and need people like her to vote Labour next time.

We've listened, this time it'll be different says Osborne in 2020...

With regards blaming Labour, what do people think is the shelf life for the Mess We Inherited line?

The Tories are going to have their own 'messes' and Labour had better be very able to spell out what they are and how they would sort them. What will be essential is that the left / progressive parties don't all attack each other and forget to turn their main fire on the Tories - who will have been in government for quite some time by 2020. They didn't get attacked nearly enough in 2015. If the left parties are savvy - they will at least agree that tactic in advance of 2020 and what the main attack messages will be.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:00 am

I'm now going to jump off this 60 foot high cliff, then complain when my legs and spine get shot to pieces.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:01 am

TobyLatimer wrote:I mentioned it to Owen Jones, although i don't think i was chastising. i can't get to grips with how working people such as this lady could trust the malicious bastards. Maybe better political education is the key.

ScreenShot00867.jpg

More to the point, I struggle to understand why anyone would believe anything Cameron says at election time after "no more top down re-organisation of the NHS". This woman actively voted for 12bn welfare cuts. Even people who don't pay attention couldn't have missed the "1930s spending levels" warning after Osborne's autumn statement. She knew someone would suffer when she put her x in the Tory box. I'm not saying I don't feel sorry for her and a belated enlightenment is better than no enlightenment at all, but I feel a lot more sorry for those people who didn't vote Tory who are about to lose out from the tax credit cuts.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:04 am

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 33m33 minutes ago
One Tory minister calls George Osborne "evil" for tax credit changes without offering more transition help http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 587445.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 35m35 minutes ago
Tory MPs coming under huge pressure not to put their name to backbench business debate on tax credits http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 587445.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 36m36 minutes ago
Osborne ‘hiding’ impact of changes to tax credit - as we reveal latest developments http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 587445.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

That's an article I'd like to be able to read.

There is going to be some kind of mitigation or U turn ... this is much more damaging than a pasty tax for Osborne - and he won't want the evil branding that goes with it.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:10 am

Willow904 wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:I mentioned it to Owen Jones, although i don't think i was chastising. i can't get to grips with how working people such as this lady could trust the malicious bastards. Maybe better political education is the key.

ScreenShot00867.jpg
More to the point, I struggle to understand why anyone would believe anything Cameron says at election time after "no more top down re-organisation of the NHS". This woman actively voted for 12bn welfare cuts. Even people who don't pay attention couldn't have missed the "1930s spending levels" warning after Osborne's autumn statement. She knew someone would suffer when she put her x in the Tory box. I'm not saying I don't feel sorry for her and a belated enlightenment is better than no enlightenment at all, but I feel a lot more sorry for those people who didn't vote Tory who are about to lose out from the tax credit cuts.

Thanking you for the balance there Willow. But - again from door knocking - people could and did miss the '1930s spending levels' warning. I never once encountered anyone who had heard or got that one ... but I certainly heard the Labour chaos, wrecked the economy stuff. The media was so full of that - and I am also aware that many voters in certain areas got targeted messages / missives from CCHQ that we never saw.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:21 am

For anyone who doesn't get the Paul Waugh daily email ...

1) LOSING ON PENALTIES

Every now and again there comes an electric, non-manufactured moment on a TV political programme that catches the public mood. Last night’s Question Time had just one of those as a former Tory voter let rip over George Osborne's plans to slash her tax credits.

In tears, she said: "I work bloody hard for my money, to provide for my children, to get them everything they've got and you're going to take it away from me,...I can hardly afford the rent I have to pay, I can hardly afford the bills I've got to do and you're going to take more from me." As Amber Rudd shifted in her seat with discomfort, the woman shouted, "shame on you!”

This morning, Jeremy Corbyn’s Twitter account retweeted my clip of the incident, with the interesting hashtag #WorkPenalty. Which is precisely the user-friendly phrase that Owen Jones this week suggested that Labour should use to denote the tax credits cut. Just like the ‘bedroom tax’, ‘WorkPenalty’ could take off. Tory MPs who worry about the impact of on striving floating voters in their marginal seats may want to replay last night’s video on a loop to a Treasury that so far is not caving at all.

The Independent meanwhile says that the mother whose case Jeremy Corbyn cited as he spoke about tax credits during PMQs has said David Cameron’s response "made her blood boil". Kelly Ward, a nursery manager, claims she will lose £1,800 a year in the Government’s £12billion cuts to the UK’s social security budget.

The Times says Rob Halfon is leading efforts to cushion the impact of the tax credits cuts and dissidents have been heartened by rumours that at least one Treasury minister is fighting for them. Just as striking one unnamed Tory minister describes Osborne as “evil” for pushing through these changes without offering more help. And a Tory-dominated Lords select committee accuses the Chancellor of hiding the impact of his cuts, saying the Treasury's initial assessment was “difficult to understand, even for those used to economic analysis”.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:22 am

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ly-deleted" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Information provided by alleged child abuse victims to the overarching inquiry set up by Theresa May has been deleted due to a blunder, it has emerged.

Submissions sent through an online form to the inquiry between 14 September and 2 October were “instantly and permanently deleted” on Thursday before they reached staff.

Such sloppiness doesn't engender a great deal of confidence, does it?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:26 am

Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ly-deleted
Information provided by alleged child abuse victims to the overarching inquiry set up by Theresa May has been deleted due to a blunder, it has emerged.

Submissions sent through an online form to the inquiry between 14 September and 2 October were “instantly and permanently deleted” on Thursday before they reached staff.
Such sloppiness doesn't engender a great deal of confidence, does it?

Absolutely none. I hate the way the media tide appears to have turned re this issue. Bea Campbell tried very hard to make some important points on This Week last night ... all Neil and Portillo would do was slam Tom Watson.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:26 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:I mentioned it to Owen Jones, although i don't think i was chastising. i can't get to grips with how working people such as this lady could trust the malicious bastards. Maybe better political education is the key.

ScreenShot00867.jpg
More to the point, I struggle to understand why anyone would believe anything Cameron says at election time after "no more top down re-organisation of the NHS". This woman actively voted for 12bn welfare cuts. Even people who don't pay attention couldn't have missed the "1930s spending levels" warning after Osborne's autumn statement. She knew someone would suffer when she put her x in the Tory box. I'm not saying I don't feel sorry for her and a belated enlightenment is better than no enlightenment at all, but I feel a lot more sorry for those people who didn't vote Tory who are about to lose out from the tax credit cuts.
Thanking you for the balance there Willow. But - again from door knocking - people could and did miss the '1930s spending levels' warning. I never once encountered anyone who had heard or got that one ... but I certainly heard the Labour chaos, wrecked the economy stuff. The media was so full of that - and I am also aware that many voters in certain areas got targeted messages / missives from CCHQ that we never saw.

The feeling I got when I was door knocking was that people simply didn't want to be aware of what the Tories were doing (after all even the Mail was publishing some stuff on the results of the benefit cuts, alongside their usual "Benefit Scrounging Scum Eat Babies" garbage); if you probed a little and got past the "It is all Labour's fault" you could tell that they knew what was going on but, as it didn't affect them or theirs, they simply didn't care. We've become an unfeeling nation, self-interested and devil take the hindmost is the philosophy.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:29 am

Arvomorfters, all.

Actually, it's teatime on Planet Ephie.

I now have some v.v.smart dove grey pillowcases, having spent part of the night dyeing my tired-looking white ones. In fact, they have a similar hue to my complexion.......I also have a stock of pasta sauces; several portions of cooked apples; a new brown velvet skirt made out of a remnant (cost - 50p); and bags under my eyes big enough to carry it all around.

Re - QT: I haven't watched it for a while. I was so pissed off with the obvious right-wing bias before and after the general election. Shameful.
I have seen the footage of the upset lady, though.

She is, IMHO, fairly typical of many people - in that, unless they are personally impacted by a particular policy, they don't really engage with politics much at all. They may or may not turn out to vote; they don't look at what the parties offer in detail; and if they do vote, they tend to go with whatever they think is in their own best interests without bothering to scrutinise the record.

This lady is clearly not aware of how many lies the Tories told in coalition, she obviously didn't notice the u-turns over five years of it, and she assumed - perhaps because the media told her to - that the Tories are sorting out the economy and the £12 Billion in cuts would be imposed on people who are not like her.
Whilst it's true that Cameron promised there would be no cuts to tax credits (which is the thing that seems to have upset her so much), not one Tory would say where the cuts axe would fall. Maybe she - like others in her situation - thought only the scroungers and shirkers would be under the cosh, people who are not like her.
What she doesn't understand - and this applies to all the people in similar circumstances as hers who voted Tory - is that she IS a scrounger because she is on tax credits and she too will be under the cosh, not just now but especially when Universal Credit comes her way and she'll be sanctioned with all the people who are not like her.

We have known for a long time that working people were next - I've been saying it for years. The sick, disabled, carers, unemployed, and working poor will have yet more punishment - and whoever is next up in the food chain will start to feel what the Tories can do when they get the chance.
Unless Osborne u-turns on this, come April there will be a lot of very disgruntled people out there.

Do I have sympathy for that lady? A bit - but only because she and her family will suffer. But we know from many surveys that the general public broadly agree with benefit cuts, and I daresay this lady is/was one of them.
It's OK to strip the terminally ill of their support, it's OK to sanction people, it's OK to force people into workfare - but that's for people who are not like her. Now she knows that she is, in fact, a benefit claimant too, she's suddenly all upset.

I know exactly how she feels. Welcome to my world of worry, fear-filled brown envelopes, constant penny-pinching......and stop voting Tory.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:34 am

I haven't watched the QT clip but saw Toby's post when logging on this morning.

Why does the woman only feel moved to tears when it is her own pocket that is affected ?
She, presumably, felt happy to vote Tory when she thought other people, a lot worse off than her, may be affected.

So, sad though her situation may be it is hard to feel much sympathy.

But it is a good thing if some lower paid people learn the eternal bitter lesson - a Working Class Tory is a self defeating and masochistic thing to be. Just a shame their misery will be shared by millions who did not vote Tory.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:45 am

Sorry, if I sound even grumpier than usual !
Had a good night's sleep aided by Lem-sip, Vick rub rubbed anywhere vaguely rubbable so should be feeling more chipper.

Was amused listening to Nicola Sturgeon interviewed by James Naughtie.
You can see why she's so highly rated, she really is a consummate politician.

I'm paraphrasing from memory but Sturgeon comes out with things like 'I wouldn't want to dodge the question Jim' while obviously dodging the question. When pressed she responded with some thing like 'Let's not get into the technical argument'.

My favourite was, while pretending to be O So Humble, Sturgeon said she didn't spend time looking at polls showing the SNP soaring high. Just enough time to be able to use a term like soaring high though, triumphalist whilst pretending to be the opposite.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 9:48 am

yahyah wrote:Sorry, if I sound even grumpier than usual !
Had a good night's sleep aided by Lem-sip, Vick rub rubbed anywhere vaguely rubbable so should be feeling more chipper.

Was amused listening to Nicola Sturgeon interviewed by James Naughtie.
You can see why she's so highly rated, she really is a consummate politician.

I'm paraphrasing from memory but Sturgeon comes out with things like 'I wouldn't want to dodge the question Jim' while obviously dodging the question. When pressed she responded with some thing like 'Let's not get into the technical argument'.

My favourite was, while pretending to be O So Humble, Sturgeon said she didn't spend time looking at polls showing the SNP soaring high. Just enough time to be able to use a term like soaring high though, triumphalist whilst pretending to be the opposite.

But, but she is so authentic ......

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 10:14 am

Patrick O'Flynn ‏@oflynnmep 8m8 minutes ago
Congratulations to newly elected Cambs County Councillor Richard Mandley who won Chatteris by-election for Ukip last night. #winningincambs

Looking forward to a round up from Anatoly later on ...

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 10:31 am

TobyLatimer wrote:I'm now going to jump off this 60 foot high cliff, then complain when my legs and spine get shot to pieces.

One moment I remember from the last election coverage, interview with 3 people who'd been undecided until the last minute. One of them was a 'health care worker'. And she couldn't decide how to vote?!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 10:39 am

Two from Bonnie (who I often find seizes on the same things that scream at me). Her twitter commentary on QT pretty much says it all ...

Bonnie Greer ‏@Bonn1eGreer 11h11 hours ago Hammersmith, London
#RodLiddle's been a member of #Labour for 40years??!!
#bbcqt

Bonnie Greer ‏@Bonn1eGreer 11h11 hours ago Hammersmith, London
Roger Helmer-now an expert on Arabic!!!
hahahahahah...!
And with #RodLiddle's #Dianafication term-
This is surreal tonight!
#bbcqt

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 10:46 am

I did see the relevant bit of QT last night, although I never watch more than a few minutes of it.

My first thought was the same as Toby's.

However, from the MSM point of view, the fact that she voted for it highlights the tories' dissembling and makes the story more powerful.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 11:08 am

Dips toe in water.I think there is massive difference between voting for what you believe is in your families best interests and actively wanting to penalise others.If she believed the rhetoric,she probably believed the "protection" line;if she thought about it all.I am not into this "It serves you right" business at all.The Tory Party are vermin,people that vote for them do not automatically become so as a consequence.I view her as someone who regrets a decision she made.To assign automatic castigation,ascription as to personality etc is ridiculous.
Going for a break.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 11:11 am

gilsey wrote:I did see the relevant bit of QT last night, although I never watch more than a few minutes of it.

My first thought was the same as Toby's.

However, from the MSM point of view, the fact that she voted for it highlights the tories' dissembling and makes the story more powerful.

Yes, there is that. But - if the Government does some sort of U-turn and ameliorates her situation, will she go back to thinking that it's listening and is, therefore, not so bad after all? (Sod everyone else, though!)

Edited to add

And would she realise that, should such a U-turn happen, it was only because there was no choice? That they would have done it if they thought that they could get away with it and that they had not had a Damascene conversion?

People are very gullible - especially with the way the press conducts itself.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 11:11 am

Good morfternoon.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 11:14 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning all.

Re the lady on QT. I think she was duped like so many people at the last election. The Tories did a right number - ably abetted and massively amplified by the media - on scaring people about economic chaos if Labour got in. Labour did not / were unable to strongly counter that message especially after not having countered the 'mess we left behind narrative' and with some key people appearing to go along with the 'we spent too much and that crashed the economy' line.

From door knocking I am reminded of how little attention most people pay to politics in the way we do here ... they simply don't follow the ins and outs and detail. It's much harder for them to get an understanding of what's what at election times - unless they get very strong, clear messages for a duration that they can relate to - and that's certainly what the Conservatives did. Labour didn't - it chopped and changed and was over reactive rather than assertive.

I can't feel too hard on this lady - she thought she was doing the right thing for her family. She now knows she wasn't - and she and her children will suffer. We want and need people like her to vote Labour next time.

We've listened, this time it'll be different says Osborne in 2020...

With regards blaming Labour, what do people think is the shelf life for the Mess We Inherited line?
The Tories are going to have their own 'messes' and Labour had better be very able to spell out what they are and how they would sort them. What will be essential is that the left / progressive parties don't all attack each other and forget to turn their main fire on the Tories - who will have been in government for quite some time by 2020. They didn't get attacked nearly enough in 2015. If the left parties are savvy - they will at least agree that tactic in advance of 2020 and what the main attack messages will be.

Regarding the point about left/progressive parties not attacking each other. The SNP are already being very disingenuous about Labour. Now they can't use the 'Red Tory' jibe they're singing from the same hymn sheet as the Tories by accusing Labour of hopeless division and unelectability. They wish. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? Labour are the main obstacle to Scottish independence.

As yahyah says elsewhere, you have to admit Sturgeon is the consummate politician. Her near namesake Niccolo Machiavelli would have been impressed with the way she masks her ruthless monomania with faux modesty and faux leftiness. Having said that I have to admit I don't despise her quite as much as I despise Cameron and co .... however Sturgeon has covertly helped them and for that she should be condemned.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 11:17 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ly-deleted
Information provided by alleged child abuse victims to the overarching inquiry set up by Theresa May has been deleted due to a blunder, it has emerged.

Submissions sent through an online form to the inquiry between 14 September and 2 October were “instantly and permanently deleted” on Thursday before they reached staff.
Such sloppiness doesn't engender a great deal of confidence, does it?
Absolutely none. I hate the way the media tide appears to have turned re this issue. Bea Campbell tried very hard to make some important points on This Week last night ... all Neil and Portillo would do was slam Tom Watson.

I think the MSM, not for the first time, are badly misreading public opinion on this one.

Most people outside the bubble believe there *has* been a cover up, and are mostly totally uninterested in often nitpicking and transparently partisan attacks on somebody who is seen as trying to do something about it. Watson doesn't always observe niceties - so what? Or that is what many will think, at any rate.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 11:20 am

That clip from Question Time of the tax credits lady has gone viral on social media, drawing interest from people who are beginning to wise up to what's happening. I just hope Labour are able to make the most of this and spell out the reality of Tory government.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 11:34 am

HindleA wrote:Dips toe in water.I think there is massive difference between voting for what you believe is in your families best interests and actively wanting to penalise others.If she believed the rhetoric,she probably believed the "protection" line;if she thought about it all.I am not into this "It serves you right" business at all.The Tory Party are vermin,people that vote for them do not automatically become so as a consequence.I view her as someone who regrets a decision she made.To assign automatic castigation,ascription as to personality etc is ridiculous.
Going for a break.

(my bold)

I agree.
The Tory party's MPs and active members are a bad political party creating unnecessary, cruel laws with their legislation.
I don't fully understand what motivates someone to vote Tory but they're not the same as a Tory MP or a member of the Tory party.
They've made a mistake, people who voted for Tories made a mistake.
Don't vote Tory any more, please, they'll hurt you.

Good-morning, everyone.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 11:55 am

nickyinnorfolk wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:

We've listened, this time it'll be different says Osborne in 2020...

With regards blaming Labour, what do people think is the shelf life for the Mess We Inherited line?
The Tories are going to have their own 'messes' and Labour had better be very able to spell out what they are and how they would sort them. What will be essential is that the left / progressive parties don't all attack each other and forget to turn their main fire on the Tories - who will have been in government for quite some time by 2020. They didn't get attacked nearly enough in 2015. If the left parties are savvy - they will at least agree that tactic in advance of 2020 and what the main attack messages will be.
Regarding the point about left/progressive parties not attacking each other. The SNP are already being very disingenuous about Labour. Now they can't use the 'Red Tory' jibe they're singing from the same hymn sheet as the Tories by accusing Labour of hopeless division and unelectability. They wish. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? Labour are the main obstacle to Scottish independence.

As yahyah says elsewhere, you have to admit Sturgeon is the consummate politician. Her near namesake Niccolo Machiavelli would have been impressed with the way she masks her ruthless monomania with faux modesty and faux leftiness. Having said that I have to admit I don't despise her quite as much as I despise Cameron and co .... however Sturgeon has covertly helped them and for that she should be condemned.

It is noticeable that Queen Nicola seeming to kick a second referendum into the long grass yesterday has not met with universal approval from her "subjects".

For quite a few people - including many who have signed up in the past year - this is *the* reason why they support the SNP. But there is reason to believe, backed up by polling evidence, that prioritising another referendum right now is one of the few things that could cause many floating voters to dump the Nat ship at present. The point is, sooner or later there is going to *have* to be a decision here and it is impossible to see how even as consummate an operator as Sturgeon can keep everyone happy. And on this, just attacking Labour isn't going to cut it.

Comparisons have been made - with considerable justification - between the present hegemonic SNP and New Labour, on that basis when the inevitable disillusionment comes in it will be powerful. Its just a question of whether they *can* get independence before then......

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 11:59 am

HindleA wrote:Dips toe in water.I think there is massive difference between voting for what you believe is in your families best interests and actively wanting to penalise others.If she believed the rhetoric,she probably believed the "protection" line;if she thought about it all.I am not into this "It serves you right" business at all.The Tory Party are vermin,people that vote for them do not automatically become so as a consequence.I view her as someone who regrets a decision she made.To assign automatic castigation,ascription as to personality etc is ridiculous.
Going for a break.

My first thought was the same as Toby's, but I didn't feel comfortable with it.

I do feel sympathy for tory voters losing their tax credits, in general, but feeling sympathy for one particular person who's clearly thinking only of herself is beyond me.
We're a hardworkingfamily, you're scroungers.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 12:03 pm

It's not like she wasn't warned,

Ed Miliband had tried to sharpen the electoral choice in the final eight days of the election campaign, saying another Tory-led government would lead to the devastation of family finances
The Tories have a “secret plan” to cut tax credits and child benefit that would lead to 7.5 million families losing £760 a year, the Labour leader claimed. He also said the armed forces, social care and neighbourhood policing would be cut, saying the chancellor, George Osborne, had a £58bn hole in his finances to fill through cuts.
Ed Balls tried to pin the Tories down to admit that their proposed £12bn savings in the welfare budget to 2017-18 will require cuts to child benefit and tax credits. Cameron has so far refused to rule out cuts to tax credits, 75 % of which go to families in work.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ecret-plan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 12:05 pm

TobyLatimer wrote:I mentioned it to Owen Jones, although i don't think i was chastising. i can't get to grips with how working people such as this lady could trust the malicious bastards. Maybe better political education is the key.

ScreenShot00867.jpg

I hate to say it, but many of those that vote do so because of what it might bring them. They honestly don't think about others. Rebecca is right only I'd put it this way. Unless they have it branded on their forheads they'll not change.

If you say to a bloke who's working hard and although he earns a fairly decent wage doesn't have anything to spare at the end of the month, that the Tories are going to give tax cuts, but Labour has said they won't. Ten chances to one he's going to vote Tory.
It's just the way it is.

These cuts now though are something else...So many people dragged into losing money. So many already affected. Sheer numbers may be what does for the Tories in 2020. Unless of course George and Dave catch on and do some back stepping.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 12:10 pm

I think it's entirely possible that the tories think that the 20% of families, who won't be better off with the changes, don't vote for them anyway.
That could be very wrong, as these are exactly the people whose financial security is closest to the edge, making them more likely to be swayed by the tory message.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 12:17 pm

I've been reading, over at the Guardian's Politics Live, about the SNP conference and fracking. I firmly believe that Labour should go hard on (anti) fracking. Labour's own "project fear". I think it's a subject that reaches to people across the political divide. Water, property rights, safety - you name it.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 12:20 pm

It could have been handled differently, if they had to do it at all. Gently phased in maybe over 5 -10 years (which could come under Gidders Fiscal Law) A small reduction in the % of tax credits alongside a genuine increase in national minimum/and or/ living wage.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 12:21 pm

Interesting article over at the Inst of Gov about managing legislation with a small majority.

Handle with care: the 2015 Parliament

http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.u ... arliament/

The number of instances on which government defeat actually threatens seems likely to depend on the extent to which MPs opt to vote on tactical grounds, rather than on principle. Although governments in recent history have not expected a majority in the Lords, the shift from coalition to majority government has had an obvious impact on the current Government’s ability to secure its business there. As we discussed in a previous blog, the absence of a majority in the Lords has led to an increase in the number of government defeats there – the tally now stands at 10 since the election.

At a recent Institute for Government event the Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Heywood, conceded that the Civil Service had “become a bit rusty, particularly on Lords handling. I think Lords handling is even more important for a government with a small majority in the House of Commons and no majority at all in the Lords.” Now more than ever, parliamentary handling should be a serious consideration for all civil servants thinking about how to ensure the Government achieves its business in either House.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 12:24 pm

Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ly-deleted
Information provided by alleged child abuse victims to the overarching inquiry set up by Theresa May has been deleted due to a blunder, it has emerged.

Submissions sent through an online form to the inquiry between 14 September and 2 October were “instantly and permanently deleted” on Thursday before they reached staff.
Such sloppiness doesn't engender a great deal of confidence, does it?

Um. I thought most deletions were recoverable on a computer?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 12:33 pm

gilsey wrote:I think it's entirely possible that the tories think that the 20% of families, who won't be better off with the changes, don't vote for them anyway.
That could be very wrong, as these are exactly the people whose financial security is closest to the edge, making them more likely to be swayed by the tory message.

Yep. They are the people that have seen themselves as strivers rather than scroungers. Who bought into the rhetoric of scroungers getting more to live on than they do.

I remember in the run up to the election. Someone wrote: All those working families on tax credits don't realise they're going to be sucked into the cuts if the Tories get in again. They don't see themselves as dependent on the State. or as on benefits.

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 12:37 pm

OK, while loath to express some of this without seeming to wish to give offence, I'll give it a go ... sorry in advance and for the length (- see TL:DR at end for short version!)

Osborne! As a personal opinion I think a tremendous opportunity is being lost by not treating him with the disdain and apathy he deserves.
[In my mind this disdain would imply 'abstain' as opposition gives credence to his fiscal 'law' as having meaning - a weak attempt at ordoliberalism and faith in arbitrary rules with no apparent idea how to calibrate them]

Osborne has exposed a huge attack surface for various attack vectors on his previous and current narratives ... and on himself personally by the use of the word 'normal' as a necessary qualifier while acting as a (debt/deficit) fetishist. The linkage of 'surplus' and by implication 'deficit fetishism' with 'normal' should be his undoing in that it draws in the demands different important aspects of the overall economy and their interplay rather than just 'public finances' as his proxy for 'the economy'. As various 'factoids' show:

What is 'Normal' - for debt?
Placing the emphasis on 'sustainable debt' in the National Accounts suggests that 1997 to 2008 (even extending to now) was a remarkably successful period in modern times for bringing down the actual interest payments on the debt as a percentage of GDP - sustainability? - achieving rates of less than 2% for the first time ever since the formation of Great Britain http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spend ... 011mcn_90t by the ratification of the Act of Union in 1707 having inherited a rate of 3.8% - same data zoomed in to show this - http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spend ... 011tcn_90t). So, in statistical terms we are not in a 'normal' period in economic history but at the benign 'unusual' end of the distribution - where we would seem to have considerable 'fiscal space' relative to previous debt burdens?

When was "The Economy" 'normal' (and a sufficiently 'good time' to 'fix the roof')? Perhaps, turning to measures of GDP growth we could suggest the period from 1993 to 2007-8? See LSE research paper -
"The UK’s sustained growth between 1997 and 2008 was fuelled by the importance of skills and new technology. Rather than just austerity, the government should focus on building human capital and innovation to support long-term growth." http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... 7-to-2008/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The inclusion of the latter part of Major's Gov't on my part is a deliberate 'tactic'. Not only GDP improved but productivity as GDP per capita (adult) improved and, particularly during the Labour years saw the UK outperform and close the admittedly large gap with the other major economies - while ('fixing the roof') making substantial publicly funded investments in long neglected infrastructure - all achieved with shrinking current expenditure and debt interest payments as a proportion of GDP.

A period of surplus was indeed achieved but in hindsight policy was too tight (forecasts too pessimistic later becoming too optimistic but more accurate than the OBR!) and together with the dotcom bubble bursting there was clearly no need to deflate and damage the economy further. Inflation / interest rates remained fairly constant and low under a newly independent Bank of England steering monetary policy (£ fairly stable then rising as good performance relative to other currencies); rising living standards and record levels of employment during a 'risky' introduction of a minimum wage, establishment of workers rights (Working Time Regulations, Pensions Act, TUPE and Equality Act), reductions in pensioner and child poverty and moderation and mitigation of income inequality - the latter a difficult task performed better than other major economies throughout the period - but essentially achieved mainly via tax credits. See IFS Living Standards, Inequality and Poverty: Labour’s Record http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn89.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His linkage between his fiscal rule and Labour's 'deficit denial' unleashes further attacks directly back on Osborne. It is an unfortunate factoid that while one measure of "the deficit" was reduced - which he mentions quite a lot- he fails to mention that the ('real'?) economy was producing a record and potentially more dangerous mirroring 'deficit' (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... t-deficit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) :

"While the budget deficit fell from £142 billion in 2010 to £95 billion in 2014, the current account deficit more than doubled in cash terms from £41 billion to £98 billion over the same period. [my emph]"

Does he deny that the deterioration in the performance of our 'Primary Income' might well have to do with the opportunist way that R&D tax credits have been used to massage the 'improved' measure of GDP?

So the deliberate conflation and confusion of identifying the Government's finances as The Economy ignores the potential real linkages and interdependence of effects of liquidity, levels of demand, savings, tax policies, interest rates, asset prices, the level of the £, etc.. Does Osborne's claim that his long term economic plan is 'working' necessarily deny that a greater deficit has been created? A reduction of £47 billion in one deficit - the Govt's budget - is a 'success' only by denying or ignoring that it was accompanied by a simultaneous record rise in the Nation's Current Account deficit of £57 billion! This amount also has to 'financed'? Does 'not mentioning' or ignoring this mean it is going to be part of the new 'Osborne normal'?

The previous paragraphs might suggest the case that the odd surplus rather than sustainable deficits should only be attempted in 'abnormal' rather than normal times but that would undermine the opportunity for a political attack on Osborne. That is to say that of course there is no objection to a surplus 'as such' but Osborne's crucial 'qualifier' is self-styled and that Osborne is himself not 'normal' and therefore cannot define a 'normal' time.

What is accepted as 'normal' by our society and to be tolerated or worsened by Osborne's non-intervention?
Should the extended use and reliance on food banks be subsumed into such a definition of a 'normal' economy so not deserving of our attention or our consideration? How about a time of increasing child poverty (if the fiscal 'law' trap is a retaliation for what he considers the political trap of child poverty targets then the scrapping of the latter suggests it will be normal?) and 'less generous' treatment of the disabled. How about £375 billion of ongoing QE as 'normal' - another £ billion rolled over into longer bonds this month - with the power of the State subsidising and inflating asset prices substantially for the more wealthy and the 'offshore owners' who now make up the majority share of the UK's listed public companies. How about the interplay with interest rates and stimulus generally? Cameron tried to deny the truth that many people, particularly with mortgages or asset rich, did very well from the responses to the Financial Crisis - he rebuked and 'sacked' (a phantom one as he continued his work) Lord Young for pointing out that most Britons 'had never had it so good' as it wasn't part of the 'basket case like Greece' need-to-be-rescued narrative! Will the 'ordoliberal' rule require policies to just be based on aggregate forecasts of artificial measures of GDP, or GDP per capita and not nuanced responses to real needs to address different realities and different real events in different real peoples' lives?

I don't think that the UK public generally consider Osborne as 'normal' - in the derivative statistical sense or in its extended common parlance meaning. Undenied or refuted personal allegations (some potentially backed with evidence and demands of being sued if he thinks they are false) of use of drugs, paying for rubber-panted spanking sessions having dildos inserted and being led around like a dog might not be enough - "Louise" - but his reported comment " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (even as a young SPAD?) that "only peasants ride on a bus" confirms his formative attitudes. 'Peasant' might not feel as 'toxic' as 'plebs' but historically, as of course as he would know(?), the plebs were more dangerous as they had risen to a degree of independence while the Roman peasants were still more subservient to their rich aristocratic masters.

The juxtaposition of the word 'normal' and 'Osborne as arbiter' contrasts with his sense of entitlement and experience as abnormal. That comes with his (Gideon-denying obfuscating 'man of the workers') Baronetcy and apparent disdain for where experiences of the normal and median in our society actually lay. The regressive distributional effects of both the personal tax allowance and 'National Living Wage' supplement are portrayed as progressive and he 'seems' to actually believe this. I am (and I think the Labour Party should be) 'extremely relaxed' about the idea of the Government finances showing a surplus - qualified by a judgement call of 'when necessary' (to slow growth or demand)? However, to entrust the timing of this call to someone whose concept of 'normal' is one guided by one type of masochistic, deficit fetishism - aimed only at Government finances above all else - is the madness of 'king George' - ignoring the context of most other interdependent variables and all the potential damage to other aspects of the economy and its distributional effects.

'Opposing' a stupidly unnecessary law is (perhaps?) to provide it with a legitimacy more than the disdain such a stupid stunt deserves. The linkage with ideas around defining 'normal' presented and present a massive opportunity to re-examine the economic credibility of Labour's record simultaneously in both the Public finances and the context of wider 'real' economy, versus the records of Tory/Coalition Governments. Is anyone really opposed to a 'surplus' per se? So why provide the same old ammunition - 'we reduced 'the' deficit ... difficult decisions (that didn't hurt 'our' voters)... (while the 'Opposition') opposed every single one of the cuts ...' The attack vector is still there - whether Osborne has any understanding of 'normal'? I just hope that the Labour front bench focuses on challenging Osborne to list what is acceptable and still be 'normal' rather than be hooked on it all being about the 'surplus' bait.

If TL:DR it can be summed up in this fairly succinct, accurate portrayal of Osborne, his 'cunning stunt' and how to attack him? " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (very rude word link!) - in contrast/comparison to Cameron's self-definition of himself (where I identify 'too many tweets' as equivalent to 'too many constant irritating, irrelevant soundbites') as 'a twat'?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 1:12 pm

@sputnikkers

The linkage with ideas around defining 'normal' presented and present a massive opportunity to re-examine the economic credibility of Labour's record simultaneously in both the Public finances and the context of wider 'real' economy, versus the records of Tory/Coalition Governments.

Good point. I hadn't thought about it in that way.

(However, I don't think I agree with you on abstention. One could be done without the other, I would think?)

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 1:34 pm

Oh dear, another day when someone takes umbrage at how others think/feel/react.

One can consider one's own family situation and still have concern about others when voting.
All the years my husband earned a very good salary it would have been in our household's interest to vote Tory but we didn't because we wanted things to be fairer for others.

But in the end, we don't know what motivates that woman, a couple of minutes in front of a camera doesn't give insight. So we, as human beings, take our own position on it, however ridiculous or anger making that may be to some.

edited to correct typo - one to own.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 1:37 pm

We've just heard. One of the last council run care homes with an attached day centre for people with dementia is closing in June...They will be transferred to a large unit which will hold [we've heard] well over 200 patients. The reason for closing the home is because it's not up to standard and is dangerous. [That's their standard excuse despite having spent thousands on updating just last year.] And it's just been rated very good....

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 1:42 pm

gilsey wrote:
HindleA wrote:Dips toe in water.I think there is massive difference between voting for what you believe is in your families best interests and actively wanting to penalise others.If she believed the rhetoric,she probably believed the "protection" line;if she thought about it all.I am not into this "It serves you right" business at all.The Tory Party are vermin,people that vote for them do not automatically become so as a consequence.I view her as someone who regrets a decision she made.To assign automatic castigation,ascription as to personality etc is ridiculous.
Going for a break.
My first thought was the same as Toby's, but I didn't feel comfortable with it.

I do feel sympathy for tory voters losing their tax credits, in general, but feeling sympathy for one particular person who's clearly thinking only of herself is beyond me.
We're a hardworkingfamily, you're scroungers.

I moaned as much as anyone about the constant use of 'hardworking families' by Labour spokespeople.

But maybe this woman shows us why Labour needed to to.

If the Tory propaganda really convinced this woman that she, considering herself hardworking, should vote Tory then no wonder we lost in May.

How the hell do you manage a mass political consciousness raising in these times ?
How can any low paid person really believe the Tories are their best choice ?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 1:53 pm

HindleA wrote:Dips toe in water.I think there is massive difference between voting for what you believe is in your families best interests and actively wanting to penalise others.If she believed the rhetoric,she probably believed the "protection" line;if she thought about it all.I am not into this "It serves you right" business at all.The Tory Party are vermin,people that vote for them do not automatically become so as a consequence.I view her as someone who regrets a decision she made.To assign automatic castigation,ascription as to personality etc is ridiculous.
Going for a break.

There is indeed a massive difference between voting for what you believe is best for your family (as this lady says she did) and actively wanting to penalise others (and we have no idea whether this lady supports benefit cuts for other groups of people).

Most people vote for what they think is right for them and those they care about - I doubt that I would vote against my own personal best interests just because I thought it was better for the country generally. I can't claim to be that altruistic!

But - as I said earlier - this lady is one of what will become many people angry that they have been sold a pup. I simply can't help feeling a bit of schadenfreude; not for that lady personally (as I said, it's a shame that she will suffer for this), but because people like me know how it feels to be promised that your support will be protected then find out that you have been lied to.

There is a massive cohort of people out there who do not think they are really benefit claimants - just because they work - yet their social security payments comprise more than a quarter of the entire spend. If you exclude pensions and pensioner-specific benefits, which account for more than half of the total, people like the lady on QT are claiming more than half of the rest. When you add up all the various working and child tax credits, child benefits/allowances, school-related support, housing benefit, and more, the amount being spent to support people in work is absolutely huge - much more than is spent on out-of-work and disability-related support combined.

I wonder how many people there are out there who happily voted Tory because they supported cuts to "welfare". The QT lady may not be one of them, for all we know; but there is no doubt, from surveys and polls, that many people who are at the lower end of the income distribution, but who work, resent people who claim benefits when out of work. There is a lot of support out there for cuts to benefits - the problem the Tories have now is that they are targeting their own working-class constituency who will not like it.

Fool me once, etc.......

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 1:54 pm

What's the betting that the woman in question has fully bought into the deeply mendacious "government finances work in exactly the same way as that of a household" meme?

Quite high, I would say.

Along with not refuting "the mess we inherited" from the outset, Labour's biggest mistake under Ed was allowing this misconception to go mostly unchallenged. And certain people in the party, shamefully, actually buying into it themselves - and Harman made one of these acting Shadow Chancellor!

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 1:58 pm

Apologies for taking umbrage while complaining about someone else taking umbrage at other comments.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 2:05 pm

G'day all:)

Just listening to debate in HoC on Karen Buck's 'Homes (Human Habitation) Bill' - did you have any idea that the 1985 Housing Act did not update the rental limits from their last uprating in 1957? That is that redress for tenants (rent repayments and/or compensation) in respect of unfit for habitation regulations is limited to dwellings for which the annual rent does not exceed £80 within London and £50 elsewhere?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 16 Oct, 2015 2:05 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:What's the betting that the woman in question has fully bought into the deeply mendacious "government finances work in exactly the same way as that of a household" meme?

Quite high, I would say.

Along with not refuting "the mess we inherited" from the outset, Labour's biggest mistake under Ed was allowing this misconception to go mostly unchallenged. And certain people in the party, shamefully, actually buying into it themselves - and Harman made one of these acting Shadow Chancellor!

Indeed. Which is why Blanchflower etc need to get as much air time as possible. When can we expect Stiglitz on Question Time?

Doing what's best for me and my family isn't the easiest thing to calculate when you take into account health and local government spending. From a purely income tax point of view of my family I should be voting Tory. But why would I want to have a bigger slice of the pie if it reduces others measly portions to crumbs?