Wednesday 15th April

[ohsocynical]

Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/policy-briefing/w ... ign=buffer

I'm surprised the Tories haven't tried to gag them yet.

[yahyah]

We had a leaflet from our Tory candidate Henrietta Hensher this morning.

Interesting that in a constituency that is a fight between Plaid & the Lib Dem incumbent, they only mention Labour inside. The whole of the back page is taken up with warnings about a 'coalition of chaos' with a bigger pic of Ed than Clegg, Farage, Wood & Salmond.

It does suggest the Tory candidate hasn't really put any thought into what's happening locally.

Am waiting in trepidation for the new edition of the Cambrian News, they will be attacking Huw Thomas, our Labour candidate for his youthful ant-English silliness, after getting at Plaid last week.
All the while, the Lib Dems must be smirking at the damage done to both Labour & Plaid, and emerge smelling, suspiciously, of roses. Lib Dem dirty tricks, well executed with the help of a friendly editor.

[Swarthlander]

From the Graun...

Nigel Farage has sought to depict Ukip as a mainstream, responsible party

So will the idiots/trolls be posting Lib/Lab/Con/UKIP from now on then?

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I'm still confused about the tax\minimum wage thing. Amongst other things - doesn't HMRC tax you on the amount of money you get - and that not co-related to how many hours you worked to get it (ie how do they know you're on minimum wage and not just working short hours)? It sounds like a form-filling nightmare.

Maybe the Tories are going to do what I think they've planned for the married allowance if they are re-elected, that it would be settled at the end of the tax year.

Or maybe, more likely, they haven't actually thought about it.

You do get the impression that if (God forbid) they manage to cling to power it'll be a question of "Oh sod, now what do we do, we've got to deliver on some of that twaddle?"

[Swarthlander]

We had a leaflet from our Tory candidate Henrietta Hensher this morning.

Trivia I know but the only leaflet I've had so far is a Labour one. This is a Tory area.

[yahyah]

I'm still confused about the tax\minimum wage thing. Amongst other things - doesn't HMRC tax you on the amount of money you get - and that not co-related to how many hours you worked to get it (ie how do they know you're on minimum wage and not just working short hours)? It sounds like a form-filling nightmare.

Maybe the Tories are going to do what I think they've planned for the married allowance if they are re-elected, that it would be settled at the end of the tax year.

Or maybe, more likely, they haven't actually thought about it.

You do get the impression that if (God forbid) they manage to cling to power it'll be a question of "Oh sod, now what do we do, we've got to deliver on some of that twaddle?"

Or, if they need Clegg to prop them up again, they can conveniently ditch the policies and blame the Lib Dems for it.

[yahyah]

We had a leaflet from our Tory candidate Henrietta Hensher this morning.

Trivia I know but the only leaflet I've had so far is a Labour one. This is a Tory area.

What's your constituency Swartlander ?

[yahyah]

This sort of thing seems to be unmentioned in the media's coverage of the parties' election bids.

From the Cambrian News today [the paper I was dissing earlier !]

''Man who hanged himself was stressed over benefits

15 April 2015
A TREGARON man who committed suicide had been feeling stressed by the process of applying for benefits, an inquest has heard.

Mark William Jacka, 26, was found dead in his home in Tregaron on Tuesday, 10 February, after his pregnant girlfriend raised concerns that she had been unable to contact him for around 24 hours.
Mr Jacka had hanged himself. Ceredigion coroner Peter Brunton heard that Mr Jacka sometimes had trouble filling out official forms and had been struggling with the forms to apply for benefits which had also left him short of money.''

[ohsocynical]

Launch of Labour's manifesto for women.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05qgk8f

And

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/lab ... -for-women

[LadyCentauria]

I'm still confused about the tax\minimum wage thing. Amongst other things - doesn't HMRC tax you on the amount of money you get - and that not co-related to how many hours you worked to get it (ie how do they know you're on minimum wage and not just working short hours)? It sounds like a form-filling nightmare.

They're not saying they'll create a mechanism whereby those working fewer than 30 hours at minimum wage are the sole people who will be taken out of tax. The Conservatives are saying they will raise the personal allowance to whatever that money equivalent is. Since the current personal allowance is £10,600 (which is, I am reliably informed through my reading of FTN, just under 30 hours at minimum wage for an adult) they only need to nudge the personal allowance up by a tadge/smidgen/gnat's-breadth to meet the 'pledge'. They're raising the personal allowance for just about everyone – just tying it to a new algorithm. HMRC shouldn't need any new information on people's employment status in order to process that.

[Swarthlander]

We had a leaflet from our Tory candidate Henrietta Hensher this morning.

Trivia I know but the only leaflet I've had so far is a Labour one. This is a Tory area.

What's your constituency Swartlander ?

Scarborough.

[yahyah]

Launch of Labour's manifesto for women.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05qgk8f

And

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/lab ... -for-women

Ed was talking about it on Radio 4's Womans Hour this morning.
Came across well. When asked [yet again, yawn] about the pink bus he said he loved it, and that it had stimulated debate about wider women's issues.

[PorFavor]

Nicola Sturgeon is being interviewed on the BBC News Channel. The interviewer (Joanna Gosling?) has just voiced the previously unspeakable - at least on the BBC. She's suggested that people are "over-egging the pudding" when they say that Labour would be at the mercy of the SNP (re Trident).

[mikems]

I'm still getting a steady stream of anti-gull literature. Somehow, I seem to have been included on the local conservative party mailing list so, as well as all the glossy literature and full-colour four page tabloids, I get direct mail from them too.

Helpfully, the last letter I received contained a second class pre-paid envelope, folded in some dreadful, vapid and dull propaganda, which is exactly what I was looking for to return the Labour questionnaire that arrived the day before.

I have struck a blow in the asymmetric war, comrades!

[citizenJA]

@SpinningHugo
I've read your critique regarding 'predistribution and price fixing' a couple of times just now linked below.
I'll need to mull it over; thank you for taking the time to write it.

http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?p=43494#p43494" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

I'm still getting a steady stream of anti-gull literature. Somehow, I seem to have been included on the local conservative party mailing list so, as well as all the glossy literature and full-colour four page tabloids, I get direct mail from them too.

Helpfully, the last letter I received contained a second class pre-paid envelope, folded in some dreadful, vapid and dull propaganda, which is exactly what I was looking for to return the Labour questionnaire that arrived the day before.

I have struck a blow in the asymmetric war, comrades!

The best thing I've read today!

[Swarthlander]

Trivia I know but the only leaflet I've had so far is a Labour one. This is a Tory area.

What's your constituency Swartlander ?

Scarborough.

Ha! The postman has just delivered the Tory leaflet.
Apparently I have a choice between David Cameron or CHAOS!

[tinybgoat]

Yesterday the staff of the Guardian voted on which party to support in May. Any clues yet?

Well, it doesn't appear to be the Conservatives...
David Cameron gave an upbeat launch to his campaign, but his party is selling a false prospectus of prosperity to a divided nation
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

Don't think they're totally enamoured with greens yet.
[url]http://%20www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/14/guardian-view-green-party-manifesto-radical-v-possibility[/url]

mentions " the politics of la-la land."

[LadyCentauria]

What's your constituency Swartlander ?

Scarborough.

Ha! The postman has just delivered the Tory leaflet.
Apparently I have a choice between David Cameron or CHAOS!

Which one of the X-Men does OGRFG fancy himself as, then?

[LadyCentauria]

Yesterday the staff of the Guardian voted on which party to support in May. Any clues yet?

Well, it doesn't appear to be the Conservatives...
David Cameron gave an upbeat launch to his campaign, but his party is selling a false prospectus of prosperity to a divided nation
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

Don't think they're totally enamoured with greens yet.
[url]http://%20www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/14/guardian-view-green-party-manifesto-radical-v-possibility[/url]

mentions " the politics of la-la land."

Could we possibly take any heart from the the one on Labour?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... for-change

Ed Miliband’s pledges are modest, but tough and consistent. But his decision to face up to Labour’s poor ratings on the economy has come very late in the day

Hmm...

[ephemerid]

I'm still confused about the tax\minimum wage thing. Amongst other things - doesn't HMRC tax you on the amount of money you get - and that not co-related to how many hours you worked to get it (ie how do they know you're on minimum wage and not just working short hours)? It sounds like a form-filling nightmare.

They're not saying they'll create a mechanism whereby those working fewer than 30 hours at minimum wage are the sole people who will be taken out of tax. The Conservatives are saying they will raise the personal allowance to whatever that money equivalent is. Since the current personal allowance is £10,600 (which is, I am reliably informed through my reading of FTN, just under 30 hours at minimum wage for an adult) they only need to nudge the personal allowance up by a tadge/smidgen/gnat's-breadth to meet the 'pledge'. They're raising the personal allowance for just about everyone – just tying it to a new algorithm. HMRC shouldn't need any new information on people's employment status in order to process that.

I can understand the confusion. though.

Their manifesto says, very clearly, that they will bring in a new law which will prevent anyone on NMW having to pay tax.

As things are, working 30 hours at NMW keeps you below the threshold (£10,400PA) but working 35 or more brings you just above it and you pay about £6 a week income tax.
Raising the threshold to £12,500 (which they say they'll do) means that anyone working full-time up to 40-odd hours on NMW will be out of tax - and millions of higher earners will benefit too.

This policy is a bit of nothing much really. I broke it down in a post yesterday (or the day before) somewhere here; what IS new is that the Tories are claiming they will bring in a new law.
What LadyC says is right - HMRC looks at all income then taxes accordingly. If you are below the threshold, no tax. Hourly rates are irrelevant if that's what the policy is.

Suppose you have a person who has an income from something else (pension? rent?) and also has a part-time job on NMW they will be liable for income tax if their income overall is higher than the threshold. That's obvious.
But - if the Tories do what they say they'll do and bring in a new law, how would someone like that be affected? The whole idea is simply not workable - so the only conclusion I can make is that there will be no change.

[RogerOThornhill]

This 'independent' costing of UKIP policies which seems to be a bit partial in my view...what about this in the section on 'fake charities'?

Evidence from the Institute of Economic Affairs highlights historical data revealing that “between 1997 and 2005, the combined income of Britain’s charities nearly doubled, from £19.8bn to £37.9bn, with the biggest growth coming in grants and contracts from government departments”. In addition, the Centre for Policy Studies found that state funding rose by 38% in the first years of the 21st century, while private donations rose by just 7%.

Yes, they're that independent that they rely on stuff from right wing thinktanks...mind you I'm happy to get rid of the New Schools Network...

[ohsocynical]

Barnaby Spen ‏@Barnabyspeak 18 mins18 minutes ago

totally unreported, Brussels blocks David Cameron's plan to renegotiate European Union

http://ibt.uk/A006HI7 via @IBTimesUK #eureferendum

[tinybgoat]

Thought this was a mistake by Guardian, but same wording is on other sites:
Clegg said to cheers that his party in coalition would
“add a heart to a Conservative government and a brain to a Labour one."

Sure it was spine last week, he's into full Yellow Brick Mode now!

[PorFavor]

@ ephemerid

What LadyC says is right - HMRC looks at all income then taxes accordingly. If you are below the threshold, no tax. Hourly rates are irrelevant if that's what the policy is.

That was me - just so's LadyCentauria doesn't get words put in her mouth. Best not to attribute things I say to other people because I don't half talk some cobblers at times!

[ohsocynical]

Sajid Javid Mocked On BBC Daily Politics: 'Where Is This Magic Money Tree? Where Are You Hiding It?'

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04 ... 54024.html

I've started watching more political interviews in the run up to May.

Have to say in all fairness interviewers seem to be trying a bit harder to pin the Conservatives...

[LadyCentauria]

@ ephemerid

What LadyC says is right - HMRC looks at all income then taxes accordingly. If you are below the threshold, no tax. Hourly rates are irrelevant if that's what the policy is.

That was me - just so's LadyCentauria doesn't get words put in her mouth. Best not to attribute things I say to other people because I don't half talk some cobblers at times!

It's what I said in my reply to your question, earlier, PF

[PorFavor]

@ ephemerid

What LadyC says is right - HMRC looks at all income then taxes accordingly. If you are below the threshold, no tax. Hourly rates are irrelevant if that's what the policy is.

That was me - just so's LadyCentauria doesn't get words put in her mouth. Best not to attribute things I say to other people because I don't half talk some cobblers at times!

It's what I said in my reply to your question, earlier, PF

Ah. Told you I was confused.

[RogerOThornhill]

From AS...

Frances Perraudin ✔ @fperraudin
Follow
Lib Dem bus has broken down in Hornsey for 2nd time in 2 days. "Broken bus, broken promises," shouts one passer by.

[LadyCentauria]

I'm still confused about the tax\minimum wage thing. Amongst other things - doesn't HMRC tax you on the amount of money you get - and that not co-related to how many hours you worked to get it (ie how do they know you're on minimum wage and not just working short hours)? It sounds like a form-filling nightmare.

They're not saying they'll create a mechanism whereby those working fewer than 30 hours at minimum wage are the sole people who will be taken out of tax. The Conservatives are saying they will raise the personal allowance to whatever that money equivalent is. Since the current personal allowance is £10,600 (which is, I am reliably informed through my reading of FTN, just under 30 hours at minimum wage for an adult) they only need to nudge the personal allowance up by a tadge/smidgen/gnat's-breadth to meet the 'pledge'. They're raising the personal allowance for just about everyone – just tying it to a new algorithm. HMRC shouldn't need any new information on people's employment status in order to process that.

I can understand the confusion. though.

Their manifesto says, very clearly, that they will bring in a new law which will prevent anyone on NMW having to pay tax.

As things are, working 30 hours at NMW keeps you below the threshold (£10,400PA) but working 35 or more brings you just above it and you pay about £6 a week income tax.
Raising the threshold to £12,500 (which they say they'll do) means that anyone working full-time up to 40-odd hours on NMW will be out of tax - and millions of higher earners will benefit too.

This policy is a bit of nothing much really. I broke it down in a post yesterday (or the day before) somewhere here; what IS new is that the Tories are claiming they will bring in a new law.
What LadyC says is right - HMRC looks at all income then taxes accordingly. If you are below the threshold, no tax. Hourly rates are irrelevant if that's what the policy is.

Suppose you have a person who has an income from something else (pension? rent?) and also has a part-time job on NMW they will be liable for income tax if their income overall is higher than the threshold. That's obvious.
But - if the Tories do what they say they'll do and bring in a new law, how would someone like that be affected? The whole idea is simply not workable - so the only conclusion I can make is that there will be no change.

Thanks, Ephemerid. I'd misremembered your breakdown on it and forgotten who'd said it so I beg forgiveness The Cons do bang on about 'no-one on minimum wage' paying income-tax under them, yet make it clear within the manifesto pages that they're only talking about 30 hours. Which, as you point out, is already below the threshold for tax. Heavens forfend that they play any part in the next Government but, if they did they'd be able to crow 'see we've already fulfilled one of our manifesto pledges' from the instant they took their seats. I really don't want that opportunity for Tory boasting to come to pass.

I don't want to live under another Tory government, at all!

[AnatolyKasparov]

Thought this was a mistake by Guardian, but same wording is on other sites:
Clegg said to cheers that his party in coalition would
“add a heart to a Conservative government and a brain to a Labour one."

Sure it was spine last week, he's into full Yellow Brick Mode now!

As already pointed out on social media, the Wizard of Oz was a fantasist and conman. Erm........

[tinybgoat]

Scarborough.

Ha! The postman has just delivered the Tory leaflet.
Apparently I have a choice between David Cameron or CHAOS!

Which one of the X-Men does OGRFG fancy himself as, then?

Banshee: “ You like fish, I like fish too. Maybe we should get a bite sometime and talk about it. ”

or possibly squid-boy

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Morning all.

This tells us everything one needs to know about both the original tweeter and re-tweeter...

Toby Young retweeted
Sarah Vine @SarahVine · 10h 10 hours ago
Ed Miliband is the Kim Kardashian of British politics. He thinks he's amazing - but all anyone can see when they look at him is a giant arse

Staggering, truly staggering that the wife of Michael Gove wrote that.
Does she really not see Gove as other humans do ?

Also, amusingly, didn't Dave reveal just the other day that he is related to Kim Kardashian?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

What's your constituency Swartlander ?

Scarborough.

Ha! The postman has just delivered the Tory leaflet.
Apparently I have a choice between David Cameron or CHAOS!

I presume they no longer have freepost return addresses on them? I never missed the opportunity to send my thoughts back to them at their expense

[citizenJA]

Fixing the price of things has been tried before, in lots of times and places. It doesn't work.

It is not a free market as described by ideologues. They simply ignore what they don't want to see : five or six companies control food sales and distribution, four or five banks control the retail banking sector, monopoly utility and service suppliers in almost every sector. All these extort rents from the overall economy, but because the people getting the dividend income are the same as those prating endlessly on about 'free markets', these obvious facts are completely excluded from the 'debate' etc.

The only sectors that aren't cartelised and monopolised are those that can't be : like hairdressers, plumbers, electricians, gardeners, small business service providers etc.

Bandying around the ideological catchphrases that have allowed the erection of this far-from-free market will do us no good. We need clear sight about what our economy really is, not waffle or posturing.

Food sale and distribution is a nice example, one that was often used about 10 to 15 years ago to make the point you are making.

It turned out not to be true. It turned out that in the UK we have a fiercely competitive food retail sector driving prices down (ask a dairy farmer). Aldi and Lidl undercut the big five who had been coasting for too long. The market worked.

Retail banking in the UK makes almost no money. A bank will lose money on things like current accounts (these are loss leaders to try and get you into the bank to buy other things like insurance). That is a sector (unlike supermarkets) where it would be good to have more competition, but that problem is created by regulation itself. The barriers to entry are now such that trying to start a new bank is nearly impossible.

Monopoly utility and services providers are regulated already. Nobody, including Tories, thinks we should abolish Ofwat, Ofgem, or Ofcom.

You are presenting a false dichotomy between free market libertarians and sensible people like yourself.

I'm not. I am just saying why the specific policies that are new, and the product of the predistribution thinking of Wood, aren't very good.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am a Labour voter. If you want a reason why, I only have to cite yesterday's insane Tory policy on housing, which was far worse than any of the not sensible policies I criticise here.

(my bold)

What you call 'fiercely competitive' regarding grocery stores I call 'rapacious vulture capitalism'.

There's nothing 'competitive', good, necessary or desirable about for-profit enterprises driving off choices by monopolising the playing field using the economy everyone has to use leaving customers who need a product or service having one or a few at most monster corporations delivering that for-profit product or service. What motivates those mega-corporations to maintain quality, good service & fairly priced products once they're the only gig in town?

It won't be a competitor delivering a better product or service for less because once Food4U & their monster car-park set up shop, smaller grocers selling quality foods during an 8-hour work day employing cheerful, fairly compensated staff won't even make it into one of those empty shops in town because everyone works at Food4U making apprenticeship wages if they're lucky, Workfare placement 'benefits' for the less lucky & literally cannot afford to buy from them, even if they knew Quality Grocer opened up around the corner. It's small, the marketing budget is gone on paying business rates, 2 fairly paid employees & the stock itself.

I think it's great you're voting .
Everyone who can, please vote.
Vote hard, often & pay as much attention to government leadership as possible while earning a living, raising family (I especially want to remember & appreciate those people living in a family of one person - one person families are many in society), making a home...playing music, hiking, caring for friends/family unable to care for themselves & living as healthy a life as possible.
The choices that government makes will directly impact the daily lives of most of us.

If those with disabilities can safely work at employment, we accommodate & benefit from that work as a society. Those people with disabilities preventing their having other employment have one job, let's recognise it, their work isn't easy: Daily, live & thrive as much as possible & society made together assists disabled friends who won't live in fear of not having what is necessary to live.

I'm glad you're voting Labour, SpinningHugo, it's the best choice now, in my opinion, vote Labour.
Regardless of how you vote or your philosophical outlook, thank you for some provocative ideas you share.
I look over my own ideas to make sure I'm not offending my soul by not thinking or not correcting error when I'm mistaken.
Sometimes I'm unable to appreciative some of your provocative contributions - that's normal - intelligent people often disagree.
If I've been personally offensive to you, I'm sorry for it. Please accept my apology. We can all disagree together without harm with words or action.

[PorFavor]

There's a Conservative Election Broadcast on this evening (various times and channels). Also David Cameron is being interviewed by Evan Davis - BBC1 7.30pm. (The Leader Interviews, or somesuch title.)

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Morning all.

This tells us everything one needs to know about both the original tweeter and re-tweeter...

Toby Young retweeted
Sarah Vine @SarahVine · 10h 10 hours ago
Ed Miliband is the Kim Kardashian of British politics. He thinks he's amazing - but all anyone can see when they look at him is a giant arse

Staggering, truly staggering that the wife of Michael Gove wrote that.
Does she really not see Gove as other humans do ?

Also, amusingly, didn't Dave reveal just the other day that he is related to Kim Kardashian?

So he claims. What some people will do to appear down wiv da kidz.

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

[Swarthlander]

Ha! The postman has just delivered the Tory leaflet.
Apparently I have a choice between David Cameron or CHAOS!

I presume they no longer have freepost return addresses on them? I never missed the opportunity to send my thoughts back to them at their expense

I didn't look. And I'm not rummaging through the recycle bin to find out. I do have my dignity.

[RogerOThornhill]

Staggering, truly staggering that the wife of Michael Gove wrote that.
Does she really not see Gove as other humans do ?

Also, amusingly, didn't Dave reveal just the other day that he is related to Kim Kardashian?

So he claims. What some people will do to appear down wiv da kidz.

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

Somewhat ironic that Vine works for the very paper who have plugged Kardashian* more than any other media organisation.

Not sure that's the right phrase but never mind...

[ohsocynical]

LP Women 4 Erdington retweeted
Harriet Harman ‏@HarrietHarman 1 hr1 hour ago
@ShellScott17

Older Women's Commission to be published tomorrow looks at caring for older relatives too

[ErnstRemarx]

Morning all.

Seventy years ago today the concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen was liberated by British and Canadian troops. Shortly after that liberation one of the BBC's war correspondents, Richard Dimbleby, broadcast from the camp:

...Here, over an acre of ground, lay dead and dying people. You could not see which was which... The living lay with their heads against the corpses and around them moved the awful, ghostly procession of emaciated, aimless people, with nothing to do and with no hope of life, unable to move out of your way, unable to look at the terrible sights around them ... Babies had been born here, tiny wizened things that could not live ... A mother, driven mad, screamed at a British sentry to give her milk for her child, and thrust the tiny mite into his arms, then ran off, crying terribly. He opened the bundle and found the baby had been dead for days.
This day at Belsen was the most horrible of my life.

The discoveries at that camp, and the thousands of other camps across Europe, were among the reasons that the European Convention on Human Rights was necessary; the actions of this Coalition government, their persistent erosion of people's rights, their desire to accelerate that process, the casual way in which they can talk of people as stock or suggest coloured wristbands as an easy way to identify certain groups suggest that it is still necessary. If the Tories get back in, especially if that is with the assistance of UKIP, I genuinely fear for the people of this country.

I heard a UKIP spokesman speaking on the radio this morning and now I have these words going around in my head:

The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.

Nationalism. Aside from extremist religious belief, probably the greatest killer in the history of civilisation. The hand maiden of division, discrimination, hatred and ultimately fascism, as sure as eggs are eggs.

Socialism: everything that nationalism is not, when it comes down to it.

BTW, greetings to all from Remarx Towers; I'll chat to Lady C. later about the new additions to the FTN menu - feel free to suggest your own culinary delights - but in the meantime, as per the last week or more, I've been battling on two fronts; a rather persistent and horrid virus and the WeeBundle, who's had some bad days of late. Well, not bad days all day, but days when I've pondered whether I could get away with child murder realistically. Answer, no, so had a few long chats with her. Amusingly, I took her to the local transport museum today for a craft activity, and upon my return had a chat with one of the helpers there to whom she'd obviously been chatting. "How old is she?" asked the helper; "I guessed 12 going on 21" - WB is actually 8, so that is scary.

The lessons on dialecticism and Keynesism begin after tea; looks like she's ready for it (after spellings, that is).

[pk1]

Good to see Benefits & Work are suggesting a Labour govt would be better for disabled people than any other govt. Hopefully their words will cut through all the negativity from disabled people that Labour would somehow be much worse than the Cons because of Rachel Reeves (usually misrepresented) comments.

So, now most of the manifestos are online, we’ve decided to bring out ‘election special’ newsletters in the weeks between our usual fortnightly mailouts. The aim is to help you decide whether to vote – we hope you do – and who to vote for.

However, Labour only need to save £7 billion– or possibly much less – to meet the fiscal targets they have set themselves. And they claim most of these will be met by tax rises.

So, the likelihood of Labour making cuts to benefits on the scale of the Tories is very slim indeed.

For many people, although they may despise what Labour did to sick and disabled claimants during their time in office, Labour remain very much the lesser of two evils at this election.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3 ... etter+2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rebecca]

It is not a free market as described by ideologues. They simply ignore what they don't want to see : five or six companies control food sales and distribution, four or five banks control the retail banking sector, monopoly utility and service suppliers in almost every sector. All these extort rents from the overall economy, but because the people getting the dividend income are the same as those prating endlessly on about 'free markets', these obvious facts are completely excluded from the 'debate' etc.

The only sectors that aren't cartelised and monopolised are those that can't be : like hairdressers, plumbers, electricians, gardeners, small business service providers etc.

Bandying around the ideological catchphrases that have allowed the erection of this far-from-free market will do us no good. We need clear sight about what our economy really is, not waffle or posturing.

Food sale and distribution is a nice example, one that was often used about 10 to 15 years ago to make the point you are making.

It turned out not to be true. It turned out that in the UK we have a fiercely competitive food retail sector driving prices down (ask a dairy farmer). Aldi and Lidl undercut the big five who had been coasting for too long. The market worked.

Retail banking in the UK makes almost no money. A bank will lose money on things like current accounts (these are loss leaders to try and get you into the bank to buy other things like insurance). That is a sector (unlike supermarkets) where it would be good to have more competition, but that problem is created by regulation itself. The barriers to entry are now such that trying to start a new bank is nearly impossible.

Monopoly utility and services providers are regulated already. Nobody, including Tories, thinks we should abolish Ofwat, Ofgem, or Ofcom.

You are presenting a false dichotomy between free market libertarians and sensible people like yourself.

I'm not. I am just saying why the specific policies that are new, and the product of the predistribution thinking of Wood, aren't very good.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am a Labour voter. If you want a reason why, I only have to cite yesterday's insane Tory policy on housing, which was far worse than any of the not sensible policies I criticise here.

(my bold)

What you call 'fiercely competitive' regarding grocery stores I call 'rapacious vulture capitalism'.

There's nothing 'competitive', good, necessary or desirable about for-profit enterprises driving off choices by monopolising the playing field using the economy everyone has to use leaving customers who need a product or service having one or a few at most monster corporations delivering that for-profit product or service. What motivates those mega-corporations to maintain quality, good service & fairly priced products once they're the only gig in town?

It won't be a competitor delivering a better product or service for less because once Food4U & their monster car-park set up shop, smaller grocers selling quality foods during an 8-hour work day employing cheerful, fairly compensated staff won't even make it into one of those empty shops in town because everyone works at Food4U making apprenticeship wages if they're lucky, Workfare placement 'benefits' for the less lucky & literally cannot afford to buy from them, even if they knew Quality Grocer opened up around the corner. It's small, the marketing budget is gone on paying business rates, 2 fairly paid employees & the stock itself.

I think it's great you're voting .
Everyone who can, please vote.
Vote hard, often & pay as much attention to government leadership as possible while earning a living, raising family (I especially want to remember & appreciate those people living in a family of one person - one person families are many in society), making a home...playing music, hiking, caring for friends/family unable to care for themselves & living as healthy a life as possible.
The choices that government makes will directly impact the daily lives of most of us.

If those with disabilities can safely work at employment, we accommodate & benefit from that work as a society. Those people with disabilities preventing their having other employment have one job, let's recognise it, their work isn't easy: Daily, live & thrive as much as possible & society made together assists disabled friends who won't live in fear of not having what is necessary to live.

I'm glad you're voting Labour, SpinningHugo, it's the best choice now, in my opinion, vote Labour.
Regardless of how you vote or your philosophical outlook, thank you for some provocative ideas you share.
I look over my own ideas to make sure I'm not offending my soul by not thinking or not correcting error when I'm mistaken.
Sometimes I'm unable to appreciative some of your provocative contributions - that's normal - intelligent people often disagree.
If I've been personally offensive to you, I'm sorry for it. Please accept my apology. We can all disagree together without harm with words or action.

Thanked you in error!now I am an equal opportunity clumsy fingered comment or.What I meant to do is ask what on ear th does 'vote hard' mean?Do I need to dress up like Rambo before I go to the polling station or simply put a lot of weight on the pencil when I place my x?p

[SpinningHugo]

There's nothing 'competitive', good, necessary or desirable about for-profit enterprises driving off choices by monopolising the playing field using the economy everyone has to use leaving customers who need a product or service having one or a few at most monster corporations delivering that for-profit product or service. What motivates those mega-corporations to maintain quality, good service & fairly priced products once they're the only gig in town?

It won't be a competitor delivering a better product or service for less because once Food4U & their monster car-park set up shop, smaller grocers selling quality foods during an 8-hour work day employing cheerful, fairly compensated staff won't even make it into one of those empty shops in town because everyone works at Food4U making apprenticeship wages if they're lucky, Workfare placement 'benefits' for the less lucky & literally cannot afford to buy from them, even if they knew Quality Grocer opened up around the corner. It's small, the marketing budget is gone on paying business rates, 2 fairly paid employees & the stock itself.

But choice is better, at least for the consumer, surely? When I think back to the food available even 15 to 20 years ago, the quality, range and delivery is much better now.

When I was a child I was dragged around a supermarket every weekend by my parents. Now, I have my weekly shop delivered to my door by Tesco (much greener than everyone driving to supermarkets). I pick up a veg bag from round the corner. Buy meat and fish at local butchers and fishmongers. Everything just better than it was.

At the lower price end, Lidl and Aldi offer fruit, veg and meat at an astonishingly low price. Food prices have been falling as a share of our incomes (which is partially why housing is such an issue - it is now the sharp end of where poverty is felt.)

I know that these people are in it to make money, but they can only do that by offering people stuff at a competitive price.

The point about low pay in Tescos is a by-product of tax credits. If you pay tax credits to the working poor (as we do - but many other developed countries do not to the same extent) that encourages a business model where the employer employs part time low paid workers, with the bill picked up in part by the state. That is the model Tescos (and others) operate to. It is sometimes said that it would be better to do away with tax credits and increase the minimum wage. Tescos (and others) would respond by increasing automation. Productivity would go up, but we'd have more unemployment. Take your choice. I choose what we have.

There was a time a few years ago when Tescos were making supra normal profits on their capital (ie it looked like a cartel). Not any longer. We don't want Tescos making lots of money. Their profit collapse has coincided with overall retail sales growth, which seems to show that it is a structural problem for them. Good.

[ErnstRemarx]

It is not a free market as described by ideologues. They simply ignore what they don't want to see : five or six companies control food sales and distribution, four or five banks control the retail banking sector, monopoly utility and service suppliers in almost every sector. All these extort rents from the overall economy, but because the people getting the dividend income are the same as those prating endlessly on about 'free markets', these obvious facts are completely excluded from the 'debate' etc.

The only sectors that aren't cartelised and monopolised are those that can't be : like hairdressers, plumbers, electricians, gardeners, small business service providers etc.

Bandying around the ideological catchphrases that have allowed the erection of this far-from-free market will do us no good. We need clear sight about what our economy really is, not waffle or posturing.

Food sale and distribution is a nice example, one that was often used about 10 to 15 years ago to make the point you are making.

It turned out not to be true. It turned out that in the UK we have a fiercely competitive food retail sector driving prices down (ask a dairy farmer). Aldi and Lidl undercut the big five who had been coasting for too long. The market worked.

Retail banking in the UK makes almost no money. A bank will lose money on things like current accounts (these are loss leaders to try and get you into the bank to buy other things like insurance). That is a sector (unlike supermarkets) where it would be good to have more competition, but that problem is created by regulation itself. The barriers to entry are now such that trying to start a new bank is nearly impossible.

Monopoly utility and services providers are regulated already. Nobody, including Tories, thinks we should abolish Ofwat, Ofgem, or Ofcom.

You are presenting a false dichotomy between free market libertarians and sensible people like yourself.

I'm not. I am just saying why the specific policies that are new, and the product of the predistribution thinking of Wood, aren't very good.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am a Labour voter. If you want a reason why, I only have to cite yesterday's insane Tory policy on housing, which was far worse than any of the not sensible policies I criticise here.

Okay SpinningHugo, I appreciate some of your argument but you appear to be forgetting a major factor, i.e. ease of entry to a market. Where it's difficult or requires huge start-up costs then you're likely to see cartels. Even in more easily entered markets larger corporations are prone to undercut until they can squeeze out the small players.

As for being a Labour voter, I'd never realised at the G and only learned as much from your early posts here.

Edit: I suppose I could add buy smaller players out, especially innovative ones.

I think it's worth pointing out that the reductio ad absurdum or, if you prefer, logical outcome, of a free market is the absolute capture of that market, in much the same way that Micro$oft have done. Any unregulated market will tend toward cartels - why would the successful help those seeking to succeed? Just crush them through discounting - and cartels are inherently monopolistic.

The only logical outcome of the market forces argument, if competitors who are weaker go to the wall, is that only one company will prevail, and that will ensure that price controls - not imposed by government - are permanent. That anyone might seek to argue this point is rather silly, as it's the very bedrock of capitalism: you're there to dominate the market for the benefit of your shareholders, whom, in turn, will reward your perspicacious leadership with shitload of money and share options.

I went to Tesco today to get some mini waffles (can't find them elsewhere) and I've noticed that they're already discounting to screw over Aldi (where most of my shop takes place): now you can claim that free market competition has forced them to this, but I would say that when push comes to shove, they will happily put Aldi out of business in the UK through sacrificing profits now for future profits, and that Sainsbury's, Morrison's and Asda will be happy to hold talks with to arrange a startegy whereby each business can undercut Aldi and drive them out.

If you think I'm paranoid or mad, then I suggest that you take a long, hard look at your Tesco clubcard and ask yourself why it's in your wallet.

[ErnstRemarx]

Aldi and Lidl are new entrants to the cartel. You or I couldn't start up an international supermarket chain. They are large players expanding to get their share of the cartel action in the UK.

Tesco and others are suffering because they are being undercut, not be free market competition, but by other giants moving onto their territory, as they have done themselves. I'm sure in a few years Aldi and Lidl will grow to replace some of the existing cartel members, but that doesn't stop it being a sewn up market for the big players.

That is how competition works in markets like this. Expecting start ups to compete with Tescos is unrealistic. Expecting other major international players to do so is. And has happened. It is just observably not a cartel, and Tescos earnings per share is not great. You are at least ten years behind the curve.

A classic example of a firm with a competitive edge, that loses it overtime as other market players copy their model or undercut them.

Sometimes markets work. Recognising that doesn't make you a free market libertarian.

The only options are not

(a) free market libertarian

or

(b) a denial that markets ever work, so that any market distortion just has to be accepted.


I don't accept either view.

So you're into corparatism. Ever read any Naomi Wolf?

[StephenDolan]

Aldi and Lidl are new entrants to the cartel. You or I couldn't start up an international supermarket chain. They are large players expanding to get their share of the cartel action in the UK.

Tesco and others are suffering because they are being undercut, not be free market competition, but by other giants moving onto their territory, as they have done themselves. I'm sure in a few years Aldi and Lidl will grow to replace some of the existing cartel members, but that doesn't stop it being a sewn up market for the big players.

That is how competition works in markets like this. Expecting start ups to compete with Tescos is unrealistic. Expecting other major international players to do so is. And has happened. It is just observably not a cartel, and Tescos earnings per share is not great. You are at least ten years behind the curve.

A classic example of a firm with a competitive edge, that loses it overtime as other market players copy their model or undercut them.

Sometimes markets work. Recognising that doesn't make you a free market libertarian.

The only options are not

(a) free market libertarian

or

(b) a denial that markets ever work, so that any market distortion just has to be accepted.


I don't accept either view.

So you're into corparatism. Ever read any Naomi Wolf?

Or Naomi Klein

[danesclose]

For a bit of light relief, I noticed this in the latest Private Eye:

2015-04-15_145817.jpg (39.15 KiB) Viewed 10904 times

[ohsocynical]

Staggering, truly staggering that the wife of Michael Gove wrote that.
Does she really not see Gove as other humans do ?

Also, amusingly, didn't Dave reveal just the other day that he is related to Kim Kardashian?

So he claims. What some people will do to appear down wiv da kidz.

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

I Tweeted back to her. What do children say? It takes one to know one.

[ephemerid]

The Tories want a majority and have ruled out another coalition with the Yellow Peril.

Labour is planning a majority and has ruled out a coalition with the Yellow Peril.

So why is Clegg STILL droning on about all the things he will do when in coalition?

His latest in a long line of idiocies is claiming he would not allow benefit cuts in any coalition with the Tories.
Well, not the ones they've got planned anyway.
Even though we have absolutely no idea what they are.

I simply cannot believe what I'm hearing from him. Does he really think that he tempered the Tories' worst excesses?
Does he seriously expect us to believe that he didn't just roll over and let them do what they wanted?

This poor excuse for a man gave people hope in 2010. I know I'm not the only one who voted LibDem thinking he was selling left-of-centre policies. He couldn't even be bothered to read the Bills for H&SC/WRA yet whipped his MPs to support the government.

Good grief.