FlyTheNest

ohsocynical wrote:

diGriz wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to Bursledon Community Centre causes "total chaos" at GP surgery

To add insult to injury the Mirror Chicken - a person in a life-size chicken suit designed to mock Mr Cameron for saying he would not appear in TV debates - was tipped off about the event.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/1175014 ... ry/?ref=ar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think I missed that episode of The Thick of it.

And just think. It'll never be shown on TV.

The 'person in a life-size chicken suit' must be pretty small.
And I've never seen a chicken in a suit.
Do I get the 'Pedant of the Week' prize?

ErnstRemarx wrote:No, I suspect that it simply needs someone in post who make it clear to both of them that what they are doing is actually killing people, because that's exactly what the "reforms" are doing. If they both want to laugh at that, then I suspect that the TV will finally pick up on it.

They haven't so far.

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

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

How does that song go? Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide?

citizenJA wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:Bit more clarity re the fracking discussion - who voted for and against what. Looks like the moratorium amendment was a cross party motion including some Labour MPs proposing and voting for. John Mann also voted for the Labour amendment re strict regulations which got passed. Seen a tweet from Mark Reckless saying the Labour amendment has strangled fracking at its birth ... so UKIP not happy bunnies with the result.

John Mann MP ‏@JohnMannMP 8m8 minutes ago
Update on today's fracking vote in Parliament:

I voted FOR the 'moratorium' on fracking. This called for... http://fb.me/3SGs5w0Uh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you, RR2, I read the admendments - no way will hydraulic fracturing be given the go ahead given the bar set by the 'strict regulations'. Thank goodness!

"...the Labour amendment has strangled fracking at its birth..."

Music to my ears, Reckless.

Labour should just create a poster containing some of the tweets about what the amendments have done.

I'm terrified of unconventional fossil fuel extraction. I don't care a lot for conventional fossil fuel extraction but fossil fuels are required to make the infrastructure of a renewable energy network. I'm not an engineer so I'll say no more.

Fracking is too dangerous.

citizenJA wrote: Fracking isn't going to happen then. Outstanding.

Excellent post, those conditions are fantastic. In the current climate which water company would agree to Fracking - because if they do and water gets polluted who will be liable?

As you say an absolute killer.

Labour Press Team ‏@labourpress 14m14 minutes ago
Understand Matt Hancock agreed to do an interview with ITV but has now pulled out, after Labour forced Govt u-turn on fracking

and people are already twigging what those regulations in the amendment mean for the area where they live

Ian Lucas retweeted
Tone ‏@sexton_tony 1h1 hour ago
@IanCLucas Labours changes to#InfrastructureBill means no drilling in Borras @hugh_wre @andrew4wrexham @frackfreewxm

Tone ‏@sexton_tony 1h1 hour ago
@IanCLucas @hugh_wre @andrew4wrexham @frackfreewxm drilling site sits on ground water protection zone, amendment agreed to protect zones

Some very happy people in Borras / Wrexham tonight. I also feel reassured now that I know national parks and other protected sites are fracking no go areas - plus if they've got to inform individual home owners before drilling underneath and avoid ground water zones ... I'm trusting they won't be able to go ahead in areas like ours where most of us are not on mains water - we draw our water via a borehole taking the water from directly beneath us.

Eric_WLothian wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:

diGriz wrote: I think I missed that episode of The Thick of it.

And just think. It'll never be shown on TV.

The 'person in a life-size chicken suit' must be pretty small.
And I've never seen a chicken in a suit.
Do I get the 'Pedant of the Week' prize?

They prefer to dress casually.

Chuffed that Kippers seem to be hugely disappointed by today's news, even more so when Tories start bleating.

As someone who has lived with the era of coal mines, open cast mining and wind farms I reckon I know more about the effects of industrialisation than a lot of MPs, one method provided skilled, well paid, unionised jobs, the other ripped up ancient oak forests and altered landscapes that now resemble the moon, Mark Reckless can swivel on his fat hairy arse for all I care.

Has Paterson whinged yet?

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

Eric_WLothian wrote:

ohsocynical wrote: And just think. It'll never be shown on TV.

The 'person in a life-size chicken suit' must be pretty small.
And I've never seen a chicken in a suit.
Do I get the 'Pedant of the Week' prize?

They prefer to dress casually.

Love that - absolutely love that.

citizenJA wrote:

Fracking isn't going to happen then. Outstanding.

The typo in clause (a) is going to annoy me

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Labour Press Team ‏@labourpress 14m14 minutes ago
Understand Matt Hancock agreed to do an interview with ITV but has now pulled out, after Labour forced Govt u-turn on fracking

Are we sure he didn't just oversleep again?

Here you go - for posterity.

Mark Reckless ‏@MarkReckless 1h1 hour ago
ConLib back Lab clause 16 to strangle fracking at birth w half an alphabet soup of regulations. Only UKIP backs fracking to cut energy bills

citizenJA wrote:

Fracking isn't going to happen then. Outstanding.

I posted that picture up for some guy who was banging on about the moratorium. His conclusion is that it proves Labour are pro-fracking!

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Chuffed that Kippers seem to be hugely disappointed by today's news, even more so when Tories start bleating.

As someone who has lived with the era of coal mines, open cast mining and wind farms I reckon I know more about the effects of industrialisation than a lot of MPs, one method provided skilled, well paid, unionised jobs, the other ripped up ancient oak forests and altered landscapes that now resemble the moon, Mark Reckless can swivel on his fat hairy arse for all I care.

Has Paterson whinged yet?

He's probably out shooting at anything he hears moving in the dark and whipping hedgerows senseless to get rid of some of his excess fury - before saying something stupid.

Eric_WLothian wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:

diGriz wrote: I think I missed that episode of The Thick of it.

And just think. It'll never be shown on TV.

The 'person in a life-size chicken suit' must be pretty small.
And I've never seen a chicken in a suit.
Do I get the 'Pedant of the Week' prize?

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 14m14 minutes ago Camberwell, London
Here's a useful insight into a remarkable mindset - Nats on twitter claiming Labour beating Tories on fracking paves the way for coalition.

Uhhh? Explain please, someone.

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

Fracking isn't going to happen then. Outstanding.

I posted that picture up for some guy who was banging on about the moratorium. His conclusion is that it proves Labour are pro-fracking!

I just stop answering, because you just can't get through...Fine if they disagree and also stop posting, but they don't. They go on and on and on....

The Tories either ignore or laugh at the outlining of the effects of their policies,no matter how this outlining is undertaken.IDS got applauded in his response to Owen Jones's mentioning of seriously ill people dying whilst fighting a fit to work decision.With respect to all views never understimate how demonisation works and how pervasive.It doesn't help of course that Labour has an inglorious past and still dubious present in this regard.

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 1h 1 hour ago
UKIP on 23% in Survation Mirror poll. CON lead
CON 31 (+2) LAB 30 (-2) UKIP 23 (+3) LD 7 (-4) SNP 5 (+2) GRE 3 (+1)

Pick a poll, any poll - now add 45 and then deduct half your age - and that's about as much sense as any of these polls seem to make at the moment.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 14m14 minutes ago Camberwell, London
Here's a useful insight into a remarkable mindset - Nats on twitter claiming Labour beating Tories on fracking paves the way for coalition.

Uhhh? Explain please, someone.

It has to be something in the water. Like the Green the other day who said Labour and the Tories were in talks about a coalition. There's nothing you can say is there.

ohsocynical wrote: I just stop answering, because you just can't get through...Fine if they disagree and also stop posting, but they don't. They go on and on and on....

Yep.

TheGrimSqueaker ‏@AndyLucia · 18m18 minutes ago
@CoombesMostyn @OwenSmithMP If you are genuinely interested @MalcolmMackinno this is what Labour achieved today. pic.twitter.com/CZ7bei5cbT

Malcolm MacKinnon ‏@MalcolmMackinno · 16m16 minutes ago  Edinburgh, Scotland
@AndyLucia @CoombesMostyn @OwenSmithMP So, In principle Labour are pro Fracking

TheGrimSqueaker ‏@AndyLucia · 15m15 minutes ago
@MalcolmMackinno @CoombesMostyn @OwenSmithMP Ah, you weren't genuinely interest, thought so. Bye.

He carries on he is blocked, simple as. After that stupidity last week (I think you saw it) I can't be bothered with these people, life is too short. As RR2 says "explain please" - they are being obtuse, simple as that.

Oh FFS. It looks like Crace has competition for being the worst satirist at the Graun. Have a look at Ian Martin's (alleged comedy writer of The Thick of It and Veep) latest effort:

Labour’s right: 16-year-olds should get the vote, and 10-year-olds, too

Ed Miliband’s party has accidentally come up with a good idea. But why stop at 16-year-olds? We should also let younger children cast their ballots

And just to prove it's not the sub-editor playing silly buggers, here's the first paragraph:

Stop all the clocks, hold the phone, shoot the dog, etc, the Labour party has actually said something sensible. It wants to lower the voting age. Good. Give young people a democratic stake in the system that pays them minimum wage to clean up the old people who made such a mess of everything. It’s an uncomplicated idea, for once unprompted by a Tory promise to do exactly the same. You have to wonder if there was a software glitch at Labour HQ.

This is the kind of thing that make me wonder if the "polls" are fixed.
Kate Godfrey ‏@KateVotesLabour · 1h1 hour ago
Great evening. Rock solid Labour response on the doorstep, best figures since '97 on the phones. HUGE thank you to both sets of volunteers!

Has the Guardian reported today's news about fracking and the ILF?!

Owen Jones tweeted about it? Or is it all about the Green surge and how Greece is a beaming light for Labour?

Or am I just being sarcastic, cynical or naive?

With all what's gone on today there is yet more good news.

Peter Mandelson's latest intervention has received the scant attention it deserves.

letsskiptotheleft wrote:With all what's gone on today there is yet more good news.

Peter Mandelson's latest intervention has received the scant attention it deserves.

To be fair it was largely a statement of the blindingly obvious.

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Has the Guardian reported today's news about fracking and the ILF?!

Owen Jones tweeted about it? Or is it all about the Green surge and how Greece is a beaming light for Labour?

Or am I just being sarcastic, cynical or naive?

Fracking yes, ILF no.

BTL is a full on muppet show.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

WelshIan wrote:
It's a great prospect, isn't it? Hopefully the Green Party will maintain their higher profile so that CI is kept on the agenda, and proper costings come out showing that it is indeed affordable.

The Swiss will be voting in 2-3 years time on whether to implement a Citizens Income. If they vote yes, who knows what could happen here?

I think it's a disastrous policy for the Greens. Even if you keep the basic income at the poverty level of JSA, it's going to cost a fortune to give every working age adult in the country that money. I don't see how it can work with migrant workers either.

They could have done excellent work hitting Labour on social security, getting sickness benefit decisions back to GPs and raising benefits to a liveable level. They're now going to be laughed off the podium by Labour.

It's time might come, but it's nowhere near ready if Natalie Bennett can't give any indication of how it's paid for. Ephie is ahead of where Bennett seems to be.

The DWP's running costs were actually on course to come down quite substantially before the "reforms" kicked in.

The websites I linked to earlier give a breakdown of how it could be affordable.

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.)

They say the cost is £276bn, and the benefits, tax allowances, etc it would replace cost £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief).

The Left Futures article linked to by Rebeccariots2, provides information on some schemes where it has been trialled, the results were very encouraging:
http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/01/why- ... ns-income/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Namibia trial had to deal with an influx of migrants, and I wouldn't have an issue with placing some conditionality on migrants accessing CI (eg working for at least 6 months before accessing it).

Citizens Income and similar schemes have been discussed for a long time so it is disappointing to hear that the main political advocate of CI made such a hash of the interview yesterday morning because costings for CI schemes are readily available (I haven't seen it, so am going on what was reported here). I hope she presents the case better in the future.
My other hope is that it moves away from being a Green Party political gimmick and is given serious consideration across the political spectrum. Milton Friedman was in favour of a form of CI so there is room for the Tories and UKIP to get on board!

Ephie's post above gives loads of reasons for why it would be good for society to move to a CI, not least a transformation in the relationship between the state and the individual (even if the amount is the same as JSA). The state would recognise that everyone has a worth that is not related to work.

With respect to the Green Party attacking Labour on social security, etc - I think they should be attacking the coalition, they have made life so much worse for so many people and those are sensible suggestions that Labour should be saying. Greens and Labour should be united in making sure the coalition are kicked out in May.
Greens should differentiate themselves from Labour but this can be done in a constructive manner rather than the aggressive way it is being done at the moment (I'm thinking of the tweets from Caroline Lucas regarding £30bn of cuts and abstaining on fracking moratorium). The same thing applies to Labour.
I'm not a member of either party so it is easy for me to say that!

AngryAsWell wrote:This is the kind of thing that make me wonder if the "polls" are fixed.
Kate Godfrey ‏@KateVotesLabour · 1h1 hour ago
Great evening. Rock solid Labour response on the doorstep, best figures since '97 on the phones. HUGE thank you to both sets of volunteers!

Rule one - Never believe your own propaganda.

Labour were telling everybody they were getting a great response from canvassing - in 1983!!!

WelshIan wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

WelshIan wrote:
It's a great prospect, isn't it? Hopefully the Green Party will maintain their higher profile so that CI is kept on the agenda, and proper costings come out showing that it is indeed affordable.

The Swiss will be voting in 2-3 years time on whether to implement a Citizens Income. If they vote yes, who knows what could happen here?

I think it's a disastrous policy for the Greens. Even if you keep the basic income at the poverty level of JSA, it's going to cost a fortune to give every working age adult in the country that money. I don't see how it can work with migrant workers either.

They could have done excellent work hitting Labour on social security, getting sickness benefit decisions back to GPs and raising benefits to a liveable level. They're now going to be laughed off the podium by Labour.

It's time might come, but it's nowhere near ready if Natalie Bennett can't give any indication of how it's paid for. Ephie is ahead of where Bennett seems to be.

The DWP's running costs were actually on course to come down quite substantially before the "reforms" kicked in.

The websites I linked to earlier give a breakdown of how it could be affordable.

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.)

They say the cost is £276bn, and the benefits, tax allowances, etc it would replace cost £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief).

The Left Futures article linked to by Rebeccariots2, provides information on some schemes where it has been trialled, the results were very encouraging:
http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/01/why- ... ns-income/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Namibia trial had to deal with an influx of migrants, and I wouldn't have an issue with placing some conditionality on migrants accessing CI (eg working for at least 6 months before accessing it).

Citizens Income and similar schemes have been discussed for a long time so it is disappointing to hear that the main political advocate of CI made such a hash of the interview yesterday morning because costings for CI schemes are readily available (I haven't seen it, so am going on what was reported here). I hope she presents the case better in the future.
My other hope is that it moves away from being a Green Party political gimmick and is given serious consideration across the political spectrum. Milton Friedman was in favour of a form of CI so there is room for the Tories and UKIP to get on board!

Ephie's post above gives loads of reasons for why it would be good for society to move to a CI, not least a transformation in the relationship between the state and the individual (even if the amount is the same as JSA). The state would recognise that everyone has a worth that is not related to work.

With respect to the Green Party attacking Labour on social security, etc - I think they should be attacking the coalition, they have made life so much worse for so many people and those are sensible suggestions that Labour should be saying. Greens and Labour should be united in making sure the coalition are kicked out in May.
Greens should differentiate themselves from Labour but this can be done in a constructive manner rather than the aggressive way it is being done at the moment (I'm thinking of the tweets from Caroline Lucas regarding £30bn of cuts and abstaining on fracking moratorium). The same thing applies to Labour.
I'm not a member of either party so it is easy for me to say that!

What does this mean.

They say the cost is £276bn, and the benefits, tax allowances, etc it would replace cost £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief).

If they mean I have to pay tax on my pension contribution (and be taxed again on them when I withdraw the money).

They can fuck off.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Has the Guardian reported today's news about fracking and the ILF?!

Owen Jones tweeted about it? Or is it all about the Green surge and how Greece is a beaming light for Labour?

Or am I just being sarcastic, cynical or naive?

Fracking yes, ILF no.

BTL is a full on muppet show.

I have had a look, especially liked the reply to you about how opencast operators worked, purposely went bust before attempting to put the land back to how it was.

Companies now have to put aside money for regeneration before work commences, one nearest me has 25 million deposited with two neighbouring councils in the event of them buggering off without doing any clear up.

Right, I'm off. Second episode of Sharon Horgan's wonderful "Catastrophe" on 4, which takes precedence over everything else!

Night all.

Diana Johnson ‏@DianaJohnsonMP 17 mins17 minutes ago
To constituents asking about amendment 51 on trespass in Infastructure Bill - not moved by Green Caroline Lucas MP so no opportunity to vote


Caroline Lucas ‏@CarolineLucas 6 mins6 minutes ago
.@DianaJohnsonMP @AnnMSinnott Misleading! Labour chose to push other votes, leaving no time for Amt 51 - was told by Speaker I couldn't move

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 39s40 seconds ago
ComRes phone poll for Indy
CON 31+2
LAB 30-2
LD 8-4
UKIP 17+1
GRN 7+2
So 4 pollsters today have it within 1 point

Oh FFS. Somali's blamed for pub closures now. What's the chances of Stephen Williams being usurped?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ister.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's been Somali's in Cardiff and Newport for 200 years, don't think they caused many closures 150 years ago?

Maybe it's something to do with people having less money to get by on, that could be a biggie?

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 39s40 seconds ago
ComRes phone poll for Indy
CON 31+2
LAB 30-2
LD 8-4
UKIP 17+1
GRN 7+2
So 4 pollsters today have it within 1 point

They do but the votes for UKIP et al are widely variable. Which suggests dumb luck on the headline figures.

Mark Ferguson ‏@Markfergusonuk 8m8 minutes ago
Miliband also going VERY hard against competition and privatisation in the NHS. Big change from Labour 5/6 years ago http://labli.st/1Lcugzp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Miliband unveils NHS promise as Labour’s 3rd election pledge – as Burnham outlines 10-year vision for the health service
http://labourlist.org/2015/01/miliband- ... h-service/

From that Labourlist article on Miliband and Burnham's pledge re the NHS:

“We can only join up these services when we have the right values at the heart of our NHS: care, compassion and co-operation, not competition, fragmentation and privatisation. These aren’t the values of our National Health Service. These aren’t the values of the Labour party. These aren’t the values of the British people.”

When Labour was in government, competition was often something that ministers spoke of as a positive in the NHS. Evidently that’s no longer the case under Ed Miliband.

and

In his speech, he will say that:

“Today the Party that created the NHS in the 20th century re-sets it for the 21st as a national health and care service.”

But for the rhetoric to match the reality, more detail of how Health and Social care will be working in tandem is going to be needed.

Part of that will come through the announcement of “a new arm of the NHS” – 5,000 homecare workers working within the NHS whose role will be to help those with the greatest needs – including the terminally ill and those who are leaving hospital who need extra help.Burnham will also explain how Labour’s plan to integrate home and hospital services will help end the scandal of 15-minute care slots through use of new year-of-care budgets and incentives for providers to improve social care. By cutting avoidable hospital admissions, Burnham will argue that this could save the NHS money too.

Starting to sound good.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
What does this mean.

They say the cost is £276bn, and the benefits, tax allowances, etc it would replace cost £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief).

If they mean I have to pay tax on my pension contribution (and be taxed again on them when I withdraw the money).

They can fuck off.

I was personally affronted by that, and composed a few replies regarding the figures. Then I thought, why am I affronted, why am I trying to defend the figures? I didn't create them, it's something I read and got enthused about (I still am enthused), and in 2 short sentences you have created a rather large gap in the affordability of the figures that have been presented.

As you point out (and you're a polite leftie), higher rate taxpayers are not going to countenance removal of their pension tax relief.

I look forward to the figures that the Green Party put forward to see how they envisage paying for it.

Thanks, TE!, and goodnight everyone.

WelshIan wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

WelshIan wrote:
It's a great prospect, isn't it? Hopefully the Green Party will maintain their higher profile so that CI is kept on the agenda, and proper costings come out showing that it is indeed affordable.

The Swiss will be voting in 2-3 years time on whether to implement a Citizens Income. If they vote yes, who knows what could happen here?

I think it's a disastrous policy for the Greens. Even if you keep the basic income at the poverty level of JSA, it's going to cost a fortune to give every working age adult in the country that money. I don't see how it can work with migrant workers either.

They could have done excellent work hitting Labour on social security, getting sickness benefit decisions back to GPs and raising benefits to a liveable level. They're now going to be laughed off the podium by Labour.

It's time might come, but it's nowhere near ready if Natalie Bennett can't give any indication of how it's paid for. Ephie is ahead of where Bennett seems to be.

The DWP's running costs were actually on course to come down quite substantially before the "reforms" kicked in.

The websites I linked to earlier give a breakdown of how it could be affordable.

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.)

They say the cost is £276bn, and the benefits, tax allowances, etc it would replace cost £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief).

The Left Futures article linked to by Rebeccariots2, provides information on some schemes where it has been trialled, the results were very encouraging:
http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/01/why- ... ns-income/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Namibia trial had to deal with an influx of migrants, and I wouldn't have an issue with placing some conditionality on migrants accessing CI (eg working for at least 6 months before accessing it).

Citizens Income and similar schemes have been discussed for a long time so it is disappointing to hear that the main political advocate of CI made such a hash of the interview yesterday morning because costings for CI schemes are readily available (I haven't seen it, so am going on what was reported here). I hope she presents the case better in the future.
My other hope is that it moves away from being a Green Party political gimmick and is given serious consideration across the political spectrum. Milton Friedman was in favour of a form of CI so there is room for the Tories and UKIP to get on board!

Ephie's post above gives loads of reasons for why it would be good for society to move to a CI, not least a transformation in the relationship between the state and the individual (even if the amount is the same as JSA). The state would recognise that everyone has a worth that is not related to work.

Thanks for the reply.

It's not transformative, I don't think. For most people, they'll be paying some in and getting some back. And they'll still think some people are getting something for nothing.

The Friedman origin is interesting. but I can't believe he wanted it to be very much. The Green version of it is pretty much a different thing.

If it's a liveable amount, then it'll cost a great deal. Can't see any way round that.

YouGov/Sun poll tonight – Tories lead by one: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%

3 polls with the Tories in the lead today ....

To be clear.There is no commitment to keep ILF,but to look at means to protect funding for current recipients once it is gone.

HindleA wrote:To be clear.There is no commitment to keep ILF,but to look at means to protect funding for current recipients once it is gone.

That's not good enough. If it's a successful model ... why deny it to future people in need?

@RR" that is my reading ,I hope I am wrong.

letsskiptotheleft wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Has the Guardian reported today's news about fracking and the ILF?!

Owen Jones tweeted about it? Or is it all about the Green surge and how Greece is a beaming light for Labour?

Or am I just being sarcastic, cynical or naive?

Fracking yes, ILF no.

BTL is a full on muppet show.

I have had a look, especially liked the reply to you about how opencast operators worked, purposely went bust before attempting to put the land back to how it was.

Companies now have to put aside money for regeneration before work commences, one nearest me has 25 million deposited with two neighbouring councils in the event of them buggering off without doing any clear up.

Blithering idiots si the most polite way I can describe half the posters over there.

*sigh*

Saw a fairly long twitter exchange between A Neil and Daniel Finkelstein re the citizens income earlier - exploring the notion of a 'tipping point' where it disincentivises work. Somone was saying the limited trials there have been suggested that doesn't happen.

It seems to be an idea that is sparking a lot of interest and thought - whose time may be coming, not sure - as people are getting really weary of the increasingly complex and divisive nature of our current benefits / tax system.

I suppose that as well as needing to see the costings in much more detail ... I am wondering what the eligibility criteria will be ... who will be a 'citizen' - will it be from cradle to grave. And - as the twitter exchange concluded - how does such a system work with the open borders policy that the Green party also espouses?

HindleA wrote:@RR" that is my reading ,I hope I am wrong.

So do I.

Tories announcing £23,000 Welfare cap for the 23,000 th time.

WelshIan wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
What does this mean.

They say the cost is £276bn, and the benefits, tax allowances, etc it would replace cost £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief).

If they mean I have to pay tax on my pension contribution (and be taxed again on them when I withdraw the money).

They can fuck off.

I was personally affronted by that, and composed a few replies regarding the figures. Then I thought, why am I affronted, why am I trying to defend the figures? I didn't create them, it's something I read and got enthused about (I still am enthused), and in 2 short sentences you have created a rather large gap in the affordability of the figures that have been presented.

As you point out (and you're a polite leftie), higher rate taxpayers are not going to countenance removal of their pension tax relief.

I look forward to the figures that the Green Party put forward to see how they envisage paying for it.

Thanks, TE!, and goodnight everyone.

Yes to make it clear, thank you for the information.

14.7% are higher rate tax payers, they are not rich. When you add in family impacted and aspiration I imagine you get to 30% of the population you are hammering.

Now I have no issue with stopping the sort of crazy tax breaks where the super rich can squirrel hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax free pension, but why hit people who are saving sensibly for their pension.

Why is this somehow related to the concept of a citizens income?