Monday 26th January 2015

Post by **refitman** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 7:30 am

Morning all.

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 8:04 am

Tories paying teens to deliver leaflets in MP's key seat as Cons has so few members.

Paperboys & girls left to deliver Tory propaganda with the boast on the literature “Delivered by your local Conservative team”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vo ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 8:26 am

Hoax caller being put through to Cameron shocks number 10 switchboard

: Camphone.jpg (95.64 KiB) Viewed 9765 times

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 9:13 am

Toby Latimer wrote:Tories paying teens to deliver leaflets in MP's key seat as Cons has so few members.

Paperboys & girls left to deliver Tory propaganda with the boast on the literature “Delivered by your local Conservative team”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vo ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you Toby. I've emailed that off to our small but superb team of local Labour volunteers who go out on the doorstep. It confirms what we were told at a recent meeting - that the Tories will be trying to pay their way to a win - but it's no subsitute for having local people actually prepared and willing to go out and talk to other local people.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 9:18 am

Toby Latimer wrote:Tories paying teens to deliver leaflets in MP's key seat as Cons has so few members.

Paperboys & girls left to deliver Tory propaganda with the boast on the literature “Delivered by your local Conservative team”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vo ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That can't be right - surely they should be on Workfare shouldn't they? Oh...I see....it's like having 2 jobs (paperboy/girl and unpaid Tory activist) so - experience of adult life, experience of volunteering in the Big Society and preparation for a life of exploited drudgery at the behest of our betters, dontcha know, what?

It's been interesting to see the discussions around the Universal Basic Income - my opinion (and that's all it is - an opinion) is that a 'Citizen Wage From Cradle To Grave' is such a no brainer that all politicians/economists have to pretend not to understand money creation.

For arguments sake, let's say we've arrived at a figure of £100 p/wk for the Citizen Wage....from birth....saved, initially in a central financial institution (Dunno - could call it the National Girobank/Post Office Bank?)...so at 5 yrs old the Citizen has around £25K in the pot....10 yrs £50k and so on....and then you can gain access to your 'pot' when and if you hit hard times, decide you want to go to university, or, once over 25(?) gain access to the pot to spend on whatever you like....which I would be prepared to bet the majority would be spent in the local economy....don't forget - this wouldn't be 'debt' in the traditional sense....as it's also a personal asset and exists to be spent in the economy (but to benefit society, not to prop up an unworkable financial system) - it can, of course, be done - but it won't be. Our betters are much happier creating money in a bank to then pay that bank for creating the money and pay them interest when they 'lend' our money back to us.

...and when the Westmonster Murkydochian Bubble says the Greens policies are 'pie-in-the-sky' wish lists, they prove their inability to understand even the basics of Economics, as to say such a thing automatically confirms their belief(TM) in Gidiot and his Magic 'Longtermeconomicplan' Recovery. (It's also the 'Capitalist' class (in the Marxist sense) that pushes the myth that to have 'diginity' a person must work...everyone must work....work is everything - which is, of course, denying history, philosophy and the reality of the human condition on the planet....a bit like the way Cameron-Crosby-Newcorpse have managed to surreptitiously sneak 'the taxpayer' into everyday discourse - as though the only people that matter are those that pay tax....and somehow, your 'tax' isn't just a nominal %age of a nominal figure and is then put into the 'Government' pot (along with money they've created, magicked up out of thin air (QE) and have left over from the last time) Just to elaborate, if I have the keys to the money machine, I say I'm paying £10,000 p/a and taxing at 20%...then I change it to £15,000 but reduce tax to 15%...the 'tax' take goes up....there's more money to spend (in the local economy) etc etc. I know....'what about the money markets/banks/financial institutions....they won't like it'....tough f*****g stinky merde - they are all products of the human imagination and can be changed - no bank (or banknote) should carry more value than human life and existence.

Oh dear - I appear to have rambled on and have a bit of a bee in my bonnet this morning...perhaps it's the heady combination of Syriza and 100 Days to go

...and morning all - I think I might have a Greek-themed evening - Moussaka and Retsina, Feta salad and Ouzo

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 9:26 am

Environmental Audit Committee calls for halt to fracking
http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... ng-report/
Shale fracking should be put on hold in the UK because it is incompatible with our climate change targets and could pose significant localised environmental risks to public health.

Report: Environmental risks of fracking - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /85602.htm
Inquiry: Environmental risks of fracking - http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... g-inquiry/
Environmental Audit Committee - http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... committee/

That is the conclusion of MPs on the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee who will attempt to amend the Government’s Infrastructure Bill in Parliament today.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 9:29 am

Angela Eagle retweeted
Nick Small ‏@CllrNickSmall 2h2 hours ago
New figures show potential 97% drop in number of first time voters in #Liverpool due to #IER http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/sho ... ng-8502743" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 9:39 am

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"George Osborne demands rapid progress on fracking – full letter

Chancellor's letter to cabinet committee on economic affairs requests that ministers make dozens of interventions to fast-track shale gas drilling"

Kalimera

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 9:41 am

Tax bribes for the possible Tories, austerity for the rest.

I'm not sure if this is a personal political awareness thing but this single coalition parliament seems worse than any under Thatcher.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 9:43 am

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... CMP=twt_gu

"George Osborne demands rapid progress on fracking – full letter

Chancellor's letter to cabinet committee on economic affairs requests that ministers make dozens of interventions to fast-track shale gas drilling"

Kalimera

Tory Party desperation to rush through all manner of evil things before Election: is there something they're not telling us?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 9:48 am

mbc1955 wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... CMP=twt_gu

"George Osborne demands rapid progress on fracking – full letter

Chancellor's letter to cabinet committee on economic affairs requests that ministers make dozens of interventions to fast-track shale gas drilling"

Kalimera
Tory Party desperation to rush through all manner of evil things before Election: is there something they're not telling us?

Scorch the earth, pollute the wells.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 9:56 am

@Lonewolfie

The citizens income is probably the most interesting and pivotal Green policy for most people who are actually keen enough to actually scrutinise policy beyond the soundbite. (Although it has been around as an idea for a lot longer than they have - I remember spirited discussions about it with a small group of peeps way back in my youth). It seems to me that they will want to hang a lot of their ideas for change off this - so it will be one of their first priorities to implement. What is needed though (despite the argument that it's a radical policy that doesn't fit within our current capitalist model) is a fully costed proposal for it which will have to be based on current spending / tax bases.

NB defended a lot of the Andrew Neil probes into policy by saying many things were long term proposals. What we will be needing for this election is a manifesto that clearly sets out what they aim to do in the next 5 years - the immediate priorities and shorter term plans - and they have to be costed. I'm going to wait for the manifesto to get a sense of how realistic their plans are.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:06 am

Kalimera!

Well, this is fun.

Cameron threatening all manner of disaster in Europe now that the Greeks have chosen their government; Osborne insisting that Syriza's victory has nowt to do with austerity; Conservative Home opines this will "ramp up the Great Euro Game of destitution and extremism".

Can I smell fear?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:07 am

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... CMP=twt_gu

"George Osborne demands rapid progress on fracking – full letter

Chancellor's letter to cabinet committee on economic affairs requests that ministers make dozens of interventions to fast-track shale gas drilling"

Kalimera

His father in law must be getting impatient. He had the North earmarked for it. Now with the price of oil dropping through the floor and investment threatened he can see his projected profits coming to nowt if he has to wait...

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:12 am

Morning all.

Caroline Flint ‏@CarolineFlintMP · 2m2 minutes ago
“@corin_ja: Welcome article on #fracking but a "new, indigenous source of gas" could be biogas http://gu.com/p/457dd/stw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; >an area I will review

Interesting tweet from Caroline I thought. My understanding is that Labour will be voting against fracking today, unless they can have very strict environmental safeguards written into the Bill; not that it will delay proceedings, because Clegg's mob will just wave it through, but it does make clear (along with the biogas remark) that Labour are not wedded to fracking & are looking at friendlier alternatives. Shout that one from the rooftops and you'll start to erode the 'Surge'.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:14 am

ephemerid wrote:Kalimera!

Well, this is fun.

Cameron threatening all manner of disaster in Europe now that the Greeks have chosen their government; Osborne insisting that Syriza's victory has nowt to do with austerity; Conservative Home opines this will "ramp up the Great Euro Game of destitution and extremism".

Can I smell fear?

Yep. Oodles of it. They tell so many lies paying lip service ought to be easy. It's called Statesmanship. I can't believe they don't know how to do it.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:15 am

ephemerid wrote:Kalimera!

Well, this is fun.

Cameron threatening all manner of disaster in Europe now that the Greeks have chosen their government; Osborne insisting that Syriza's victory has nowt to do with austerity; Conservative Home opines this will "ramp up the Great Euro Game of destitution and extremism".

Can I smell fear?

Check out Sarah Wollaston's timeline on Twitter last night, she was all over this one like a rash the instant it looked like Syriza were on track for victory; well outside her brief, and straight from the CCHQ playbook.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:15 am

I see a few have compared Dave's utterly graceless response to the democratic verdict of the Greek people, and his fawning over bloodstained medieval despots.

Its no accident, either - people like him basically believe they are entitled to RULE us, no questions asked

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:16 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.

Caroline Flint ‏@CarolineFlintMP · 2m2 minutes ago
“@corin_ja: Welcome article on #fracking but a "new, indigenous source of gas" could be biogas http://gu.com/p/457dd/stw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; >an area I will review
Interesting tweet from Caroline I thought. My understanding is that Labour will be voting against fracking today, unless they can have very strict environmental safeguards written into the Bill; not that it will delay proceedings, because Clegg's mob will just wave it through, but it does make clear (along with the biogas remark) that Labour are not wedded to fracking & are looking at friendlier alternatives. Shout that one from the rooftops and you'll start to erode the 'Surge'.

Pretty sure I saw a Tweet earlier [it may even have been her] that said Labour were voting against....But don't quote me.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:20 am

StephenDolan wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... CMP=twt_gu

"George Osborne demands rapid progress on fracking – full letter

Chancellor's letter to cabinet committee on economic affairs requests that ministers make dozens of interventions to fast-track shale gas drilling"

Kalimera
Tory Party desperation to rush through all manner of evil things before Election: is there something they're not telling us?
Scorch the earth, pollute the wells.

And set things up to make loadsa dosh for selves and relatives, before they get the elbow.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:22 am

From last night:

Linux is more secure than Windows:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/01/ubun ... nment-gchq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:22 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I see a few have compared Dave's utterly graceless response to the democratic verdict of the Greek people, and his fawning over bloodstained medieval despots.

Its no accident, either - people like him basically believe they are entitled to RULE us, no questions asked

You heard Owen Paterson on Any Questions then ... he actually used the term 'rules' when referring to the government. They had some calls about it on Any Answers - as you might expect.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:26 am

Found it.

Tony Britton retweeted your Retweet
1h: Why Labour will vote to prevent shale gas extraction today - from @CarolineFlintMP and @meaglemp http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... iew=mobile" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:27 am

ohsocynical wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.

Caroline Flint ‏@CarolineFlintMP · 2m2 minutes ago
“@corin_ja: Welcome article on #fracking but a "new, indigenous source of gas" could be biogas http://gu.com/p/457dd/stw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; >an area I will review
Interesting tweet from Caroline I thought. My understanding is that Labour will be voting against fracking today, unless they can have very strict environmental safeguards written into the Bill; not that it will delay proceedings, because Clegg's mob will just wave it through, but it does make clear (along with the biogas remark) that Labour are not wedded to fracking & are looking at friendlier alternatives. Shout that one from the rooftops and you'll start to erode the 'Surge'.
Pretty sure I saw a Tweet earlier [it may even have been her] that said Labour were voting against....But don't quote me.

Yes, it was Caroline. Predictably the Green army is out on Twitter claiming this as just a reaction to the Surge which, of course, is rubbish; it has been Labour's position all along, fracking should be examined as an option but only if there are adequate safeguards in place. If it works, happy days, if it doesn't (far more likely) we don't do it; they really should have been shouting that one from the rooftops, but I guess even if they had the MSM would have cocked a deaf un.

Edited to add confirmation .....

Caroline Flint ‏@CarolineFlintMP · 2m2 minutes ago
."@AndyLucia:Labour have been expressing serious concern about fracking since 2012, long b4 any so-called 'surge'.”>Correct

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:29 am

Michael Meacher retweeted
Left Futures ‏@leftfutures 24m24 minutes ago
Why Labour should adopt 'citizen's income' | by @philbc3 http://wp.me/pVJrF-azN" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:36 am

LabourList ‏@LabourList 2h2 hours ago
16 Labour MPs release statement calling for change in direction on austerity, rail and union rights http://labli.st/1xXiz6p" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:37 am

You can make promises of a Citizen's Income, or you can do something concrete about providing people with a Living Wage.

Rachel Reeves ‏@RachelReevesMP · 4m4 minutes ago
Brent's @UKLabour council are leading the UK with their brilliant scheme to cut rates for firms paying a living wage.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1091906 ... country-to" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:42 am

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 19m 19 minutes ago
Today's Populus
Lab 35 (-1)
Con 34 (+2)
LD 9 (-)
UKIP 13 (-)
GRN 6=

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:59 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:You can make promises of a Citizen's Income, or you can do something concrete about providing people with a Living Wage.

Rachel Reeves ‏@RachelReevesMP · 4m4 minutes ago
Brent's @UKLabour council are leading the UK with their brilliant scheme to cut rates for firms paying a living wage.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1091906 ... country-to" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greenwich is following suit.

The 'incentivising' approach is going to be really central to both this scheme and the citizens income. Very tough job to predict how such incentives will filter through and affect both individuals and the wider economy and society.

From my very basic understanding of the citizens income - it is intended to permeate through and by supporting at an individual level create change in the employment and business sector - shift the balance of power somewhat. As it will be universal it has the potential to stimulate wider change. Andrew Neil was pointing to the potential downsides of this - i.e. the perverse incentives re people not wanting to work so much and therefore much reduced tax takes for the Treasury ... lower public spending possible.

The cutting business rates for those businesses that introduce it works from a different angle ... the reduction in rates for businesses with 10 or fewer employees seems very minimal £250 - so not sure if that will actually help them much. But presumably the businesses that adopt the living wage will have an edge when recruiting, and employees should be more motivated to do a good job etc. Plus with more money being earned - tax takes ought to rise. But as this policy is discretionary and at a local level it won't have the same impact on wider economy and society.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 10:59 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
LabourList ‏@LabourList 2h2 hours ago
16 Labour MPs release statement calling for change in direction on austerity, rail and union rights http://labli.st/1xXiz6p" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I was right with this until I read the words 'Diane' and 'Abbott'

That was pretty much my reaction too!

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:06 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:@Lonewolfie

The citizens income is probably the most interesting and pivotal Green policy for most people who are actually keen enough to actually scrutinise policy beyond the soundbite. (Although it has been around as an idea for a lot longer than they have - I remember spirited discussions about it with a small group of peeps way back in my youth). It seems to me that they will want to hang a lot of their ideas for change off this - so it will be one of their first priorities to implement. What is needed though (despite the argument that it's a radical policy that doesn't fit within our current capitalist model) is a fully costed proposal for it which will have to be based on current spending / tax bases.

NB defended a lot of the Andrew Neil probes into policy by saying many things were long term proposals. What we will be needing for this election is a manifesto that clearly sets out what they aim to do in the next 5 years - the immediate priorities and shorter term plans - and they have to be costed. I'm going to wait for the manifesto to get a sense of how realistic their plans are.

That's the point though - the 'current spending and tax bases' are not capable of representing on a balance sheet what the economic gain would be within the wider society. How much do we pay banks in interest on the money they created to lend to us so that we could give it back to them (and they could then subsequently 'lose' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... payer.html) in order to keep themselves (and the system) afloat? All banks, wherever they are, will pass any extra costs to customers - so as a customer/taxpayer/citizen, I'm told that we've 'rescued' the banks by giving/lending them loads of money - I (and my countrymen (and women

)) have to endure 'austerity' because we've 'saved' the banks - I then (as a customer of the banks) have to pay through higher charges as they (the banks) need to increase 'profitability' (otherwise the 'markets' won't like it) - whilst at the same time, being charged by the banks for the impact on their profits from multimillion dollar fines for criminality (Libor) and incompetence.

I suppose what I'm really saying is that the 35 year old orthodoxy of an 'economy' being purely about the money and the balance sheet and nothing else is now (and always has been) doomed to failure and is entering its' last days - it's such shame that so many have suffered (and will continue to suffer) so much.

http://mancunion.com/2013/11/07/time-fo ... economics/

“Courses should teach students to think independently and critically but the vast majority of economics modules assign no marks for these skills.” Post-Crash Economics told The Mancunion. With nine economics modules where 90% of the marks are awarded for multiple-choice questions, questions should be raised about whether studying economics is nothing more than a box ticking exercise."

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:07 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:You can make promises of a Citizen's Income, or you can do something concrete about providing people with a Living Wage.

Rachel Reeves ‏@RachelReevesMP · 4m4 minutes ago
Brent's @UKLabour council are leading the UK with their brilliant scheme to cut rates for firms paying a living wage.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1091906 ... country-to" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Greenwich is following suit.

The 'incentivising' approach is going to be really central to both this scheme and the citizens income. Very tough job to predict how such incentives will filter through and affect both individuals and the wider economy and society.

From my very basic understanding of the citizens income - it is intended to permeate through and by supporting at an individual level create change in the employment and business sector - shift the balance of power somewhat. As it will be universal it has the potential to stimulate wider change. Andrew Neil was pointing to the potential downsides of this - i.e. the perverse incentives re people not wanting to work so much and therefore much reduced tax takes for the Treasury ... lower public spending possible.

The cutting business rates for those businesses that introduce it works from a different angle ... the reduction in rates for businesses with 10 or fewer employees seems very minimal £250 - so not sure if that will actually help them much. But presumably the businesses that adopt the living wage will have an edge when recruiting, and employees should be more motivated to do a good job etc. Plus with more money being earned - tax takes ought to rise. But as this policy is discretionary and at a local level it won't have the same impact on wider economy and society.

I've never understood why Andrew Neil's lips move when he talks!

The business rate/incentive approach was one Labour tried with the Future Jobs Fund which, for a pretty ad hoc scheme, worked pretty well. I think they learned a lot of lessons from it and it forms part of the framework for Reeves Jobs Guarantee; kudos to Brent and Greenwich for leading the way, and showing that a future Labour Government would be about practical steps to aid both the employer and the employee.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:09 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:You can make promises of a Citizen's Income, or you can do something concrete about providing people with a Living Wage.

Rachel Reeves ‏@RachelReevesMP · 4m4 minutes ago
Brent's @UKLabour council are leading the UK with their brilliant scheme to cut rates for firms paying a living wage.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1091906 ... country-to" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Greenwich is following suit.

The 'incentivising' approach is going to be really central to both this scheme and the citizens income. Very tough job to predict how such incentives will filter through and affect both individuals and the wider economy and society.

From my very basic understanding of the citizens income - it is intended to permeate through and by supporting at an individual level create change in the employment and business sector - shift the balance of power somewhat. As it will be universal it has the potential to stimulate wider change. Andrew Neil was pointing to the potential downsides of this - i.e. the perverse incentives re people not wanting to work so much and therefore much reduced tax takes for the Treasury ... lower public spending possible.

The cutting business rates for those businesses that introduce it works from a different angle ... the reduction in rates for businesses with 10 or fewer employees seems very minimal £250 - so not sure if that will actually help them much. But presumably the businesses that adopt the living wage will have an edge when recruiting, and employees should be more motivated to do a good job etc. Plus with more money being earned - tax takes ought to rise. But as this policy is discretionary and at a local level it won't have the same impact on wider economy and society.

Is this going to tie in with Labour's plans to give local councils more power?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:17 am

Good-morning, friends.

Local authority revenue generation & discretionary control over what Westminster decided to disburse to LAs was dismantled in 1990 or thereabouts, wasn't it?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:21 am

Norman Smith has just Tweeted that Cameron is "flagging up" that the Northern Irish parties have not been included in the proposals for the general election debates.......what's the betting OGRFG will use this as yet another "reason" to avoid doing them?

Re. Citizens Income/Living Wage -

Any movement anywhere towards a Living Wage is to be welcomed, and I'd like to see more of it.
Some people come off in-work benefits, and some pay a bit of tax and NI, and that has to be good.
But unless living costs (especially housing costs) are not controlled, the chances are that it won't make a huge difference; plus there needs to be action to cut the more regressive taxes like VAT which takes a sizeable chunk out of low incomes.

I still think that we should consider moving towards a CI. I think it is do-able in the longer term.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:25 am

StephenDolan wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... CMP=twt_gu

"George Osborne demands rapid progress on fracking – full letter

Chancellor's letter to cabinet committee on economic affairs requests that ministers make dozens of interventions to fast-track shale gas drilling"

Kalimera
Tory Party desperation to rush through all manner of evil things before Election: is there something they're not telling us?
Scorch the earth, pollute the wells.

Exactly.

Rid the people & land from such wretched leadership.
'Christ & his friends aren't in at the moment, please leave a message after the tone.'
Somebody wake up JC.
And the Cymru dragon too.

Post by **adam** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:26 am

ephemerid wrote:Norman Smith has just Tweeted that Cameron is "flagging up" that the Northern Irish parties have not been included in the proposals for the general election debates.......what's the betting OGRFG will use this as yet another "reason" to avoid doing them?

Cameron Stands Up For Rights Of Sinn Fein shocker.

Edited to add - there were separate debates televised in Northern Ireland for the leaders of the major Northern Ireland parties last time - I imagine the same is on the cards for this time.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:30 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
LabourList ‏@LabourList 2h2 hours ago
16 Labour MPs release statement calling for change in direction on austerity, rail and union rights http://labli.st/1xXiz6p" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I was right with this until I read the words 'Diane' and 'Abbott'

The mere sight of that woman sat in a TV studio irritates me no-end.

I think she made it onto every political show except the guff that follows QT ! Isn't it time she did some bloody work in her constituency instead of gracing media with her nonsense ?!

She was on Sunday Politics, London yapping against the mansion tax again. Tim Donovan pointed out that the more she objects to it, the more presenters like him will be asking her questions about it. My immediate thought was that Abbot probably though 'brilliant - job done' at that point as more TV shows are lined up in her head.......

Talking of Sunday Pols though, they did a bit with Slimeon Hughes. If you missed it & want to hear Slimeon sounding like a Tory, have a listen from 38 mins in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... n-25012015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:37 am

ephemerid wrote:Re. Citizens Income/Living Wage -

Any movement anywhere towards a Living Wage is to be welcomed, and I'd like to see more of it.
Some people come off in-work benefits, and some pay a bit of tax and NI, and that has to be good.
But unless living costs (especially housing costs) are not controlled, the chances are that it won't make a huge difference; plus there needs to be action to cut the more regressive taxes like VAT which takes a sizeable chunk out of low incomes.

I still think that we should consider moving towards a CI. I think it is do-able in the longer term.

But if you couple a move to a Living Wage with action on housing costs (another Labour policy) and tackling energy costs (another Labour policy) then it starts to make a difference; I'm not yet sure where they will go with VAT, although Miliband has definitely ruled out any increase and not ruled out a cut. We've grown so used to back of a fag packet Government that I think we've forgotten it is possible to do it another way; so, yes Ohso, it is very possible that this will also tie in with devolution of power to the regions.

Thoughtful, joined-up Government. Won't that be a novelty.

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:40 am

On Citizens Income, there is a model here:
http://www.citizensincome.org/MoneyforEveryone.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Appendix 16, it's a Word document.)

Age Census Citizen’s Income Cost
2011 per week
0 to 15 11.9 million £56.25 £35 bn
16 to 24 7.5 million £56.25 £22 bn
25 to 64 33.4 million £71.00 £124 bn
65 + 10.4 million £142.70 £77 bn
State pension entitlements in excess of £142.70** £15 bn
Cost of Citizen’s Incomes and pension entitlements £273 bn
Running costs (1%) £3 bn
Total annual cost £276 bn

The cost of the benefits, etc this is replacing is £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief). There would also be a scrapping of the personal tax allowance. I'm not sure why its £56 for under 15s, I'd have thought, in terms of cost, that it would be better to leave it at the level of child benefit for the 1st child, about £20.

One issue the author, Malcolm Torry, came across is that those in the lower income deciles are worse off with citizens income than current benefits. He has addressed this issue and outlined an alternative in this academic paper:
https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/p ... od/em17-14" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Citizen’s Income – an unconditional and nonwithdrawable income for every individual – would offer many advantages, but transition from the UK’s current largely means-tested benefits system to one based on a Citizen’s Income might generate initial losses for some low-income households, and this could make a Citizen’s Income politically unattractive. This paper employs EUROMOD to study the initial losses that a variety of different Citizen’s Income schemes would generate, and finds that in those schemes in which a Citizen’s Income replaces most means-tested benefits, substantial household losses would occur, both generally and for households in the lowest disposable income decile, whereas where means-tested benefits are not abolished, but instead the Citizen’s Income reduces means-tested benefits in the same way that other existing income does, almost no households in the lowest disposable income decile suffer initial losses, and initial losses generally are at a manageable level. This means that there is at least one method for implementing a Citizen’s Income that could be politically attractive.

edit- sorry, the table is showing up formatted ok in the post editor. Not sure how to fix it?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:40 am

ephemerid wrote:Norman Smith has just Tweeted that Cameron is "flagging up" that the Northern Irish parties have not been included in the proposals for the general election debates.......what's the betting OGRFG will use this as yet another "reason" to avoid doing them?

Re. Citizens Income/Living Wage -

Any movement anywhere towards a Living Wage is to be welcomed, and I'd like to see more of it.
Some people come off in-work benefits, and some pay a bit of tax and NI, and that has to be good.
But unless living costs (especially housing costs) are not controlled, the chances are that it won't make a huge difference; plus there needs to be action to cut the more regressive taxes like VAT which takes a sizeable chunk out of low incomes.

I still think that we should consider moving towards a CI. I think it is do-able in the longer term.

(my bold)
Agree with your entire post - the ONS is a fine organisation, I think, but it's difficult to get a handle on an algorithm or value the ONS uses to provide the us with the 'rate of inflation'. Below the line on the G & other news threads, someone will inevitably tell the thread we don't know what we're talking about when we justly raise the question about how rent, house prices are factored into inflation values. I've not yet seen an all-in-one ONS report of The Cost of Living in the UK, the median wage in the UK & Look At How Much Houses Costs All Over the UK.

Figure 2: Index values, UK all dwellings from January 2004 to November 2014

...10.9% higher than the pre-economic downturn peak of 185.5 in January 2008

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/hpi/house ... UK-Summary

Look at that. Look at home much houses costs. Oh my god.

edited to add, this

Excluding London and the South East, UK house prices increased by 7.1% in the 12 months to November 2014

This is the shocker. It's not just London. It's not even just the South.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:48 am

WelshIan wrote:On Citizens Income, there is a model here:
http://www.citizensincome.org/MoneyforEveryone.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Appendix 16, it's a Word document.)

Age Census Citizen’s Income Cost
2011 per week
0 to 15 11.9 million £56.25 £35 bn
16 to 24 7.5 million £56.25 £22 bn
25 to 64 33.4 million £71.00 £124 bn
65 + 10.4 million £142.70 £77 bn
State pension entitlements in excess of £142.70** £15 bn
Cost of Citizen’s Incomes and pension entitlements £273 bn
Running costs (1%) £3 bn
Total annual cost £276 bn

The cost of the benefits, etc this is replacing is £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief). There would also be a scrapping of the personal tax allowance. I'm not sure why its £56 for under 15s, I'd have thought, in terms of cost, that it would be better to leave it at the level of child benefit for the 1st child, about £20.

(my bold)

Beautiful work, WelshIan! Thank you!

Forgive me if I'm not understanding the costings & what is included, but perhaps the £56 for under 15s be for childcare costs?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 11:50 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Re. Citizens Income/Living Wage -

Any movement anywhere towards a Living Wage is to be welcomed, and I'd like to see more of it.
Some people come off in-work benefits, and some pay a bit of tax and NI, and that has to be good.
But unless living costs (especially housing costs) are not controlled, the chances are that it won't make a huge difference; plus there needs to be action to cut the more regressive taxes like VAT which takes a sizeable chunk out of low incomes.

I still think that we should consider moving towards a CI. I think it is do-able in the longer term.
But if you couple a move to a Living Wage with action on housing costs (another Labour policy) and tackling energy costs (another Labour policy) then it starts to make a difference; I'm not yet sure where they will go with VAT, although Miliband has definitely ruled out any increase and not ruled out a cut. We've grown so used to back of a fag packet Government that I think we've forgotten it is possible to do it another way; so, yes Ohso, it is very possible that this will also tie in with devolution of power to the regions.

Thoughtful, joined-up Government. Won't that be a novelty.

I'm so glad you're here. What would I do without you? Thank you.

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 12:05 pm

citizenJA wrote:
WelshIan wrote:
The cost of the benefits, etc this is replacing is £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief). There would also be a scrapping of the personal tax allowance. I'm not sure why its £56 for under 15s, I'd have thought, in terms of cost, that it would be better to leave it at the level of child benefit for the 1st child, about £20.
(my bold)

Beautiful work, WelshIan! Thank you!

Forgive me if I'm not understanding the costings & what is included, but perhaps the £56 for under 15s be for childcare costs?

Oh yes, thanks - it includes child tax credits and working tax credits. There is a childcare element in working tax credits, so I assume that has been included in his figures. Help with childcare costs should be separate from the citizens income though, as not everyone needs that.

If you reduce the amount children get then you can either say it's cheaper than the current system, use the money for help with childcare and/or use the money to help those who lose out in moving from the current system to citizens income.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 12:19 pm

WelshIan wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
WelshIan wrote:
The cost of the benefits, etc this is replacing is £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief). There would also be a scrapping of the personal tax allowance. I'm not sure why its £56 for under 15s, I'd have thought, in terms of cost, that it would be better to leave it at the level of child benefit for the 1st child, about £20.
(my bold)

Beautiful work, WelshIan! Thank you!

Forgive me if I'm not understanding the costings & what is included, but perhaps the £56 for under 15s be for childcare costs?
Oh yes, thanks - it includes child tax credits and working tax credits. There is a childcare element in working tax credits, so I assume that has been included in his figures. Help with childcare costs should be separate from the citizens income though, as not everyone needs that.

If you reduce the amount children get then you can either say it's cheaper than the current system, use the money for help with childcare and/or use the money to help those who lose out in moving from the current system to citizens income.

I knew there was a straightforward explanation I simply wasn't seeing at the moment. I need a cup of tea. Thanks, WelshIan.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 12:27 pm

Thanks to WelshIan for the link.

That model estimates running costs at £3BN - currently, on top of the total spend on all social security payments of £272BN PA, there is a lot more spending on administration and outsourcing.

DWP employs 96,000 people at a cost of more than £2 Billion.
A CI would not need nearly as much admin and that bill could be cut by more than half.

DWP outsources masses of stuff, this is just some of it -
WCA, £200M PA for Maximus; IT for Maximus for WCA, £10M PA for Atos;
PIP, £100M PA for Atos and Capita; Mandatory Work Activity and Help To Work, £200M PA;
Work Programme, £1 BN PA for many and various providers;
Health and Work, £50M PA for HML (Maximus subsidiary)
Universal Credit - anyones' guess!
A CI would save all that expenditure as few of those things would be necessary.

I reckon at least £10BN a year could be saved. That would cover the cost of extra supplements for disabled people, perhaps.

I think it's an idea whose time has come. But it would take a massive shift in attitudes, and higher taxes for those who work.
Can't see it happening any time soon.....

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 12:51 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 19m 19 minutes ago
Today's Populus
Lab 35 (-1)
Con 34 (+2)
LD 9 (-)
UKIP 13 (-)
GRN 6=

Are we back to "Friday better for Labour, Monday for Tories" as when they started polling in 2013? It was the other way round in between

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 1:11 pm

The campaign rolls on ....

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 1:26 pm

David Cameron: include Northern Ireland parties too in TV debates
PM says good progress has been made in debate negotiations but questions why Northern Ireland parties are missing out

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

FFS Dave, just say you don't want to do the debates and have done with it.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 26 Jan, 2015 1:29 pm

Good afternoon.

David Cameron detected phone hoax when caller apologised for waking him
PM said no harm was done and no national security was breached by caller pretending to be GCHQ director

[David Cameron said] “So I quite rapidly asked who is this, to which the answer came it is a hoax call and so I pressed the red button on the Blackberry which ended the call. That is what happened. (Guardian - my emphasis)

No flies on Dave.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -call-gchq