Thanks Tish.Tish wrote:Exaro dropped this overnight
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5624/ ... nt-assault" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No follow up in any of the mainstream media as far as I can see
Morning.yahyah wrote:Thanks Tish.Tish wrote:Exaro dropped this overnight
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5624/ ... nt-assault" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No follow up in any of the mainstream media as far as I can see
The story link doesn't open properly for me.
Have tried using the Exaro address to access it but still blank.
Maybe because of the number of people trying to view it ?
yahyah wrote:Thanks Tish.Tish wrote:Exaro dropped this overnight
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5624/ ... nt-assault" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No follow up in any of the mainstream media as far as I can see
The story link doesn't open properly for me.
Have tried using the Exaro address to access it but still blank.
Maybe because of the number of people trying to view it ?
Workers face 14min wait to speak to the taxman as Government cuts hit revenue phone lines
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wo ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
... Callers to the tax service now have to wait nearly a quarter of an hour just to get through.
In just one month, more than a million people hung up in frustration after their calls went unanswered.
The average wait for a call to HM Revenue was 14 minutes and 22 seconds in March – up from two minutes 44 seconds, a year earlier.
Even more people could not get through at all, with 1.1 million customers giving up on their calls.
And, customers wanting help with a specific tax inquiry saw their waiting times soar. The average wait time rocketed from 4 minutes and 19 seconds in March 2014 to 16 minutes and 29 seconds this March.
People calling for help and information about tax credits also endured a massive increase in the time they had to wait to speak to an adviser.
The spiralling waiting times come as HMRC jobs are slashed. Exit packages totalling nearly £40million were agreed for 1,368 staff in the last 12 months...
Reminds me of the group of clergy who wanted to talk about foodbanks and the poor who were refused entry by Cameron's constituency office and had the police called on them.Outrage as Tory MP claims she felt threatened by a 'thug gang' of campaigning OAPs and disabled people
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ou ... lt-6179403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...Tory star Priti Patel has caused outrage by branding these harmless campaigners – some elderly or disabled – a “thuggish gang”.
Members of the group were shocked and distressed by the Employment Minister’s attack.
The campaigners, including a wheelchair user and at least two needing walking sticks, visited Ms Patel’s constituency HQ to urge her to protect the health service.
After they braved the rain outside her office in Witham, Essex, she fired off a furious letter to Unite union boss Len McCluskey, who she said was behind the campaign...
The remarks by Ms Patel, tipped as a future Tory leader, infuriated the group who say the planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will lead to NHS privatisation.
Malcolm Mead said: “At the age of 78 I never expected to be called a thug by my MP. Priti Patel should apologise and listen to our concerns.”...
rebeccariots2 wrote:Workers face 14min wait to speak to the taxman as Government cuts hit revenue phone lines
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wo ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;... Callers to the tax service now have to wait nearly a quarter of an hour just to get through.
In just one month, more than a million people hung up in frustration after their calls went unanswered.
The average wait for a call to HM Revenue was 14 minutes and 22 seconds in March – up from two minutes 44 seconds, a year earlier.
Even more people could not get through at all, with 1.1 million customers giving up on their calls.
And, customers wanting help with a specific tax inquiry saw their waiting times soar. The average wait time rocketed from 4 minutes and 19 seconds in March 2014 to 16 minutes and 29 seconds this March.
People calling for help and information about tax credits also endured a massive increase in the time they had to wait to speak to an adviser.
The spiralling waiting times come as HMRC jobs are slashed. Exit packages totalling nearly £40million were agreed for 1,368 staff in the last 12 months...
I thought it was illegal to use volunteers to fill a proper job .... and that's what this appears to be to me. Volunteers are meant to be just that - volunteering their time and skills.Cash-strapped NHS trusts have been accused of exploiting young people by asking graduates to work for nothing.
Trusts across the country are recruiting voluntary assistant psychologists to fill skilled posts that usually pay up to £24,000.
One trust says the graduate must have at least a 2:1 degree and be ready to work unpaid for a year.
Labour’s shadow health minister Andrew Gwynne said: “If hospitals are now asking graduates to work for free, then that is a shocking sign of the pressures on the NHS under this Tory Government.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gr ... ar-6179446" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It took me 45mins to get through with a tax credit enquiry, which cost me a fiver. All because they renewed my claim with info they got from my husband's employer only to renew it all over again when I gave them the exact same information when they requested it. I couldn't see the point of getting and using the employer's information, it just meant they did everything twice, thus confusing me because I got double payments 2 months in a row. This is a recent development and presumably to do with UC but until UC is rolled out to child tax credit claimants it seems to me it's creating a lot of extra workload and confusion to little purpose.yahyah wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote:Workers face 14min wait to speak to the taxman as Government cuts hit revenue phone lines
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wo ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;... Callers to the tax service now have to wait nearly a quarter of an hour just to get through.
In just one month, more than a million people hung up in frustration after their calls went unanswered.
The average wait for a call to HM Revenue was 14 minutes and 22 seconds in March – up from two minutes 44 seconds, a year earlier.
Even more people could not get through at all, with 1.1 million customers giving up on their calls.
And, customers wanting help with a specific tax inquiry saw their waiting times soar. The average wait time rocketed from 4 minutes and 19 seconds in March 2014 to 16 minutes and 29 seconds this March.
People calling for help and information about tax credits also endured a massive increase in the time they had to wait to speak to an adviser.
The spiralling waiting times come as HMRC jobs are slashed. Exit packages totalling nearly £40million were agreed for 1,368 staff in the last 12 months...
Do right wingers not care about or recognise the result of their 'shrink the state' madness ?
Do they all have accountants to deal with their tax affairs ?
I am more than a little suspicious that when my husband applied for Osborne's pensioner bonds when he turned 65 he got through quickly ont he phone and the paperwork confirming the bonds had been given to him arrived within a few days.
Same with the Marriage Allowance, there were a few glitches with the website but I applied to transfer my unused tax allowance last month and this month my husband's had the tax back and code change in one of his company pension payments. They seem to be able to get that sorted speedily.
Why can they get Osborne policy stuff to work fairly smoothly, and other people have to suffer long waits/cock ups. Answer on a postcard please to.....
Back in the days when I could be bothered, I used to argue that it was the "Politics" blog and not the "Parliament" blog and that there was, therefore, no justification for suspending operations during the very lengthy and frequent holidays when all sorts of political shenanigans were still going on.refitman wrote:Andrew said that it would be back when parliament is, in September.rebeccariots2 wrote:Has the Guardian retired the politics live blog for the summer? Or has it gone for good? I realise I haven't seen it for quite some time now.
Btl at the G has certainly gone a bit Corbyn mental but I'm not sure it's representative. A lot of the comments are in a very similar vein to the cybernat comments it was awash with during the Scottish referendum. I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases it actually was the same people. I dipped my toe in yesterday and ended up sounding like you, Hugo, and got a bit of a bashing for my trouble but I did get a few supportive replies from likeminded souls who could equally see that voting for Corbyn and attacking much of the Labour party as Tories was going to lead to a split and was just what the right-wing media wanted. Apparently supporting the likes of Ed and Burnham makes me some kind of Blairite traitor to the cause. It's not the supporting Corbyn I have a problem with, he talks a lot of sense and should have a place in the Labour party, it's the rejection of everyone else in the party and hostility towards those with a slightly different view that concerns me. As I say, very similar to the cybernats I encountered last year. It's all part of a rejection of solidarity which I have found depressing in the rise of nationalism, with the Scots wishing doom on all the English because some of them vote Tory, so even those who didn't vote Tory deserve whatever they get, apparently. I can't help feel this is all being deliberately whipped up by some dark forces or other and it's not in the interests of ordinary people, that's for sure. It's so aggressive towards anyone not part of the group think.SpinningHugo wrote:Bloody hell.
Just ventured BTL on the Graun for the first time in months.
It is a Corbyn love in.
Mass hysteria.
Let us assume that Labour won't win under any of the current leadership candidates. Does that make it ok to vote for the least electable candidate because he will provide 'real' opposition and articulate the things like anti-austerity we want?
No.
In the 80s the unelectability of Labour gave the Tories to go even further right. Thatcher in her second term knew full well she could do what she wanted as the Tories were never going to lose.
If we tack left (and Corbyn is a Bennite, not a soft left Foot figure) that gives Osborne the scope to go even further right.
Don't.
I don't believe the 2:44 figure from the year before.rebeccariots2 wrote:Workers face 14min wait to speak to the taxman as Government cuts hit revenue phone lines
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wo ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;... Callers to the tax service now have to wait nearly a quarter of an hour just to get through.
In just one month, more than a million people hung up in frustration after their calls went unanswered.
The average wait for a call to HM Revenue was 14 minutes and 22 seconds in March – up from two minutes 44 seconds, a year earlier.
Even more people could not get through at all, with 1.1 million customers giving up on their calls.
And, customers wanting help with a specific tax inquiry saw their waiting times soar. The average wait time rocketed from 4 minutes and 19 seconds in March 2014 to 16 minutes and 29 seconds this March.
People calling for help and information about tax credits also endured a massive increase in the time they had to wait to speak to an adviser.
The spiralling waiting times come as HMRC jobs are slashed. Exit packages totalling nearly £40million were agreed for 1,368 staff in the last 12 months...
To both of you - Hear hear.Willow904 wrote:Btl at the G has certainly gone a bit Corbyn mental but I'm not sure it's representative. A lot of the comments are in a very similar vein to the cybernat comments it was awash with during the Scottish referendum. I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases it actually was the same people. I dipped my toe in yesterday and ended up sounding like you, Hugo, and got a bit of a bashing for my trouble but I did get a few supportive replies from likeminded souls who could equally see that voting for Corbyn and attacking much of the Labour party as Tories was going to lead to a split and was just what the right-wing media wanted. Apparently supporting the likes of Ed and Burnham makes me some kind of Blairite traitor to the cause. It's not the supporting Corbyn I have a problem with, he talks a lot of sense and should have a place in the Labour party, it's the rejection of everyone else in the party and hostility towards those with a slightly different view that concerns me. As I say, very similar to the cybernats I encountered last year. It's all part of a rejection of solidarity which I have found depressing in the rise of nationalism, with the Scots wishing doom on all the English because some of them vote Tory, so even those who didn't vote Tory deserve whatever they get, apparently. I can't help feel this is all being deliberately whipped up by some dark forces or other and it's not in the interests of ordinary people, that's for sure. It's so aggressive towards anyone not part of the group think.SpinningHugo wrote:Bloody hell.
Just ventured BTL on the Graun for the first time in months.
It is a Corbyn love in.
Mass hysteria.
Let us assume that Labour won't win under any of the current leadership candidates. Does that make it ok to vote for the least electable candidate because he will provide 'real' opposition and articulate the things like anti-austerity we want?
No.
In the 80s the unelectability of Labour gave the Tories to go even further right. Thatcher in her second term knew full well she could do what she wanted as the Tories were never going to lose.
If we tack left (and Corbyn is a Bennite, not a soft left Foot figure) that gives Osborne the scope to go even further right.
Don't.
SpinningHugo wrote:Bloody hell.
Just ventured BTL on the Graun for the first time in months.
It is a Corbyn love in.
Mass hysteria.
Let us assume that Labour won't win under any of the current leadership candidates. Does that make it ok to vote for the least electable candidate because he will provide 'real' opposition and articulate the things like anti-austerity we want?
No.
In the 80s the unelectability of Labour gave the Tories to go even further right. Thatcher in her second term knew full well she could do what she wanted as the Tories were never going to lose.
If we tack left (and Corbyn is a Bennite, not a soft left Foot figure) that gives Osborne the scope to go even further right.
Don't.
I've been torn between Burnham and Cooper. I think a female leader would be good for Labour and she has ability. Unfortunately she doesn't seem particularly popular with the electorate at large and after Ed I'm less sure of a Labour leader being able to overturn those first impressions. She can still win my vote if she comes up with something distinctive in her manifesto. I do wonder if the 20% undecideds are mostly dithering between Cooper and Burnham like me. If so, the contest is still pretty open. I'm thinking of Creasy for deputy but I like Angela Eagle too. Indeed, I like a lot of the new Labour bods coming through, which makes me more positive for the future.pk1 wrote:To both of you - Hear hear.Willow904 wrote:Btl at the G has certainly gone a bit Corbyn mental but I'm not sure it's representative. A lot of the comments are in a very similar vein to the cybernat comments it was awash with during the Scottish referendum. I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases it actually was the same people. I dipped my toe in yesterday and ended up sounding like you, Hugo, and got a bit of a bashing for my trouble but I did get a few supportive replies from likeminded souls who could equally see that voting for Corbyn and attacking much of the Labour party as Tories was going to lead to a split and was just what the right-wing media wanted. Apparently supporting the likes of Ed and Burnham makes me some kind of Blairite traitor to the cause. It's not the supporting Corbyn I have a problem with, he talks a lot of sense and should have a place in the Labour party, it's the rejection of everyone else in the party and hostility towards those with a slightly different view that concerns me. As I say, very similar to the cybernats I encountered last year. It's all part of a rejection of solidarity which I have found depressing in the rise of nationalism, with the Scots wishing doom on all the English because some of them vote Tory, so even those who didn't vote Tory deserve whatever they get, apparently. I can't help feel this is all being deliberately whipped up by some dark forces or other and it's not in the interests of ordinary people, that's for sure. It's so aggressive towards anyone not part of the group think.SpinningHugo wrote:Bloody hell.
Just ventured BTL on the Graun for the first time in months.
It is a Corbyn love in.
Mass hysteria.
Let us assume that Labour won't win under any of the current leadership candidates. Does that make it ok to vote for the least electable candidate because he will provide 'real' opposition and articulate the things like anti-austerity we want?
No.
In the 80s the unelectability of Labour gave the Tories to go even further right. Thatcher in her second term knew full well she could do what she wanted as the Tories were never going to lose.
If we tack left (and Corbyn is a Bennite, not a soft left Foot figure) that gives Osborne the scope to go even further right.
Don't.
My twitter feed is awash with Corbynites to the point that I have pretty much withdrawn from that too. Arguing with other Labour party members about who should be Leader is not for me - after all, we are equally entitled to our opinion & thanks to Ed, we all have a vote of equal worth.
FWIW I'm voting Yvette with, in the interest of gender balance, Ben Bradshaw for Deputy. If Andy Turnham or Jeremy Corbyn was my Leader vote I would vote Angela Eagle for Deputy - she was impressive at the Brighton hustings - so much so that I found myself deliberately heading for her to shake her hand. She was the only one that really stressed the importance of opposing the Tories & all that they were doing.
I don't expect many of you to agree with me but it's my opinion & it will be my vote, just as yours will be.
Hear hear hear to all three of you.pk1 wrote:To both of you - Hear hear.Willow904 wrote:Btl at the G has certainly gone a bit Corbyn mental but I'm not sure it's representative. A lot of the comments are in a very similar vein to the cybernat comments it was awash with during the Scottish referendum. I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases it actually was the same people. I dipped my toe in yesterday and ended up sounding like you, Hugo, and got a bit of a bashing for my trouble but I did get a few supportive replies from likeminded souls who could equally see that voting for Corbyn and attacking much of the Labour party as Tories was going to lead to a split and was just what the right-wing media wanted. Apparently supporting the likes of Ed and Burnham makes me some kind of Blairite traitor to the cause. It's not the supporting Corbyn I have a problem with, he talks a lot of sense and should have a place in the Labour party, it's the rejection of everyone else in the party and hostility towards those with a slightly different view that concerns me. As I say, very similar to the cybernats I encountered last year. It's all part of a rejection of solidarity which I have found depressing in the rise of nationalism, with the Scots wishing doom on all the English because some of them vote Tory, so even those who didn't vote Tory deserve whatever they get, apparently. I can't help feel this is all being deliberately whipped up by some dark forces or other and it's not in the interests of ordinary people, that's for sure. It's so aggressive towards anyone not part of the group think.SpinningHugo wrote:Bloody hell.
Just ventured BTL on the Graun for the first time in months.
It is a Corbyn love in.
Mass hysteria.
Let us assume that Labour won't win under any of the current leadership candidates. Does that make it ok to vote for the least electable candidate because he will provide 'real' opposition and articulate the things like anti-austerity we want?
No.
In the 80s the unelectability of Labour gave the Tories to go even further right. Thatcher in her second term knew full well she could do what she wanted as the Tories were never going to lose.
If we tack left (and Corbyn is a Bennite, not a soft left Foot figure) that gives Osborne the scope to go even further right.
Don't.
My twitter feed is awash with Corbynites to the point that I have pretty much withdrawn from that too. Arguing with other Labour party members about who should be Leader is not for me - after all, we are equally entitled to our opinion & thanks to Ed, we all have a vote of equal worth.
FWIW I'm voting Yvette with, in the interest of gender balance, Ben Bradshaw for Deputy. If Andy Turnham or Jeremy Corbyn was my Leader vote I would vote Angela Eagle for Deputy - she was impressive at the Brighton hustings - so much so that I found myself deliberately heading for her to shake her hand. She was the only one that really stressed the importance of opposing the Tories & all that they were doing.
I don't expect many of you to agree with me but it's my opinion & it will be my vote, just as yours will be.
Yvette Cooper and Angela Eagle were my choices up until very recently. I wish Yvette Cooper would say something to persuade me back to voting for her but she is losing, rather than gaining, momentum on the convincing persuasion front. I'm still sticking with Angela Eagle, though.pk1 wrote:To both of you - Hear hear.Willow904 wrote:Btl at the G has certainly gone a bit Corbyn mental but I'm not sure it's representative. A lot of the comments are in a very similar vein to the cybernat comments it was awash with during the Scottish referendum. I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases it actually was the same people. I dipped my toe in yesterday and ended up sounding like you, Hugo, and got a bit of a bashing for my trouble but I did get a few supportive replies from likeminded souls who could equally see that voting for Corbyn and attacking much of the Labour party as Tories was going to lead to a split and was just what the right-wing media wanted. Apparently supporting the likes of Ed and Burnham makes me some kind of Blairite traitor to the cause. It's not the supporting Corbyn I have a problem with, he talks a lot of sense and should have a place in the Labour party, it's the rejection of everyone else in the party and hostility towards those with a slightly different view that concerns me. As I say, very similar to the cybernats I encountered last year. It's all part of a rejection of solidarity which I have found depressing in the rise of nationalism, with the Scots wishing doom on all the English because some of them vote Tory, so even those who didn't vote Tory deserve whatever they get, apparently. I can't help feel this is all being deliberately whipped up by some dark forces or other and it's not in the interests of ordinary people, that's for sure. It's so aggressive towards anyone not part of the group think.SpinningHugo wrote:Bloody hell.
Just ventured BTL on the Graun for the first time in months.
It is a Corbyn love in.
Mass hysteria.
Let us assume that Labour won't win under any of the current leadership candidates. Does that make it ok to vote for the least electable candidate because he will provide 'real' opposition and articulate the things like anti-austerity we want?
No.
In the 80s the unelectability of Labour gave the Tories to go even further right. Thatcher in her second term knew full well she could do what she wanted as the Tories were never going to lose.
If we tack left (and Corbyn is a Bennite, not a soft left Foot figure) that gives Osborne the scope to go even further right.
Don't.
My twitter feed is awash with Corbynites to the point that I have pretty much withdrawn from that too. Arguing with other Labour party members about who should be Leader is not for me - after all, we are equally entitled to our opinion & thanks to Ed, we all have a vote of equal worth.
FWIW I'm voting Yvette with, in the interest of gender balance, Ben Bradshaw for Deputy. If Andy Turnham or Jeremy Corbyn was my Leader vote I would vote Angela Eagle for Deputy - she was impressive at the Brighton hustings - so much so that I found myself deliberately heading for her to shake her hand. She was the only one that really stressed the importance of opposing the Tories & all that they were doing.
I don't expect many of you to agree with me but it's my opinion & it will be my vote, just as yours will be.
AngryAsWell wrote:Hear hear hear to all three of you.pk1 wrote:To both of you - Hear hear.Willow904 wrote: Btl at the G has certainly gone a bit Corbyn mental but I'm not sure it's representative. A lot of the comments are in a very similar vein to the cybernat comments it was awash with during the Scottish referendum. I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases it actually was the same people. I dipped my toe in yesterday and ended up sounding like you, Hugo, and got a bit of a bashing for my trouble but I did get a few supportive replies from likeminded souls who could equally see that voting for Corbyn and attacking much of the Labour party as Tories was going to lead to a split and was just what the right-wing media wanted. Apparently supporting the likes of Ed and Burnham makes me some kind of Blairite traitor to the cause. It's not the supporting Corbyn I have a problem with, he talks a lot of sense and should have a place in the Labour party, it's the rejection of everyone else in the party and hostility towards those with a slightly different view that concerns me. As I say, very similar to the cybernats I encountered last year. It's all part of a rejection of solidarity which I have found depressing in the rise of nationalism, with the Scots wishing doom on all the English because some of them vote Tory, so even those who didn't vote Tory deserve whatever they get, apparently. I can't help feel this is all being deliberately whipped up by some dark forces or other and it's not in the interests of ordinary people, that's for sure. It's so aggressive towards anyone not part of the group think.
My twitter feed is awash with Corbynites to the point that I have pretty much withdrawn from that too. Arguing with other Labour party members about who should be Leader is not for me - after all, we are equally entitled to our opinion & thanks to Ed, we all have a vote of equal worth.
FWIW I'm voting Yvette with, in the interest of gender balance, Ben Bradshaw for Deputy. If Andy Turnham or Jeremy Corbyn was my Leader vote I would vote Angela Eagle for Deputy - she was impressive at the Brighton hustings - so much so that I found myself deliberately heading for her to shake her hand. She was the only one that really stressed the importance of opposing the Tories & all that they were doing.
I don't expect many of you to agree with me but it's my opinion & it will be my vote, just as yours will be.
I've withdrawn from message boards and twitter because the Corbyn love in is doing my head in. I find it hard to understand how this man has "taken off". Yes he talks the talk but not a word about "how" he intends to put it all into practice. As in pay for it all, trident money will not be available as that is based on borrowing, unless he plans on still borrowing the same amount for day to day running?
I do wonder if the press & media are doing a Farage, building him up with the hope of destroying the Labour movement.
If he wins I fear I shall never see another Labour government in my lifetime.
Thanks for this. A thoughtful post. I shall be interested to see what Burnham's priorities are when the personal manifestos are published, but he's currently my frontrunner. Like Ed, his focus is more on the most vulnerable. The main thing I struggle with Corbyn is he seems to prioritise middle class things like railways and unis - nothing wrong with that, but it offers little hope to those struggling to live day to day. Again, I'll need to see his manifesto, to judge if my first impression is accurate.HindleA wrote:Priorities
Are you voting on the basis of closest to own beliefs.
A more stalwart opposition as you see it
Previous history as Ministers
The best (granted forlorn hope)for prospective PM
To move the Party in the correct direction as you see it,regardless of consequence.
None of the candidates represent my views,none of the parties represent them,they never will.Only briefly did they come close.Far from a left/right issue for me.Burnham has some knowledge in the area I am particularly interested in ,which effects all of us,and posited some solutions.They come about half way towards what I would wish for all.On that basis I will vote for him.
.
A tax break designed to encourage business investment. Corbyn's proposal to abolish it has drawn criticism and there would certainly be far- reaching consequences of such a measure but it would be interesting to hear some non-partisan discussion of the pros and cons. Because business investment is currently woeful, so one questions whether this tax break is working and whether this tax break is, indeed, a sensible benefit.SpinningHugo wrote:
The media are interested in a story. "Labour elects Bennite" is just more interesting as a story than whether we go for Cooper or Burnham.
As far as I can tell he 'pays for it' through abolishing capital asset value depreciation. Or something.
A long read but sets out some of his main aims :Willow904 wrote:Thanks for this. A thoughtful post. I shall be interested to see what Burnham's priorities are when the personal manifestos are published, but he's currently my frontrunner. Like Ed, his focus is more on the most vulnerable. The main thing I struggle with Corbyn is he seems to prioritise middle class things like railways and unis - nothing wrong with that, but it offers little hope to those struggling to live day to day. Again, I'll need to see his manifesto, to judge if my first impression is accurate.HindleA wrote:Priorities
Are you voting on the basis of closest to own beliefs.
A more stalwart opposition as you see it
Previous history as Ministers
The best (granted forlorn hope)for prospective PM
To move the Party in the correct direction as you see it,regardless of consequence.
None of the candidates represent my views,none of the parties represent them,they never will.Only briefly did they come close.Far from a left/right issue for me.Burnham has some knowledge in the area I am particularly interested in ,which effects all of us,and posited some solutions.They come about half way towards what I would wish for all.On that basis I will vote for him.
.
Allister Heath is one of these people for whom the solution for everything is lower taxes and lower spending. Not a single original idea in his head. He's the equivalent of the quack in Blackadder who prescribed a course of leeches for everything...Tish wrote:Re the argument that a Corbyn win will shift the argument to the left regardless of whether he actually becomes PM or not, I was quite taken with this article on the Telegraph finance section by a right winger terrified of just that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... aster.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
LOLI first turn to Sky News and CNBC, while simultaneously scanning the Telegraph and Wall Street Journal websites. I then read several blogs and websites, including Guido Fawkes, Daniel Finkelstein and the Drudge Report, before moving to the newspapers. I start with the Sun, turn to the Daily Mail, and then The Guardian, Times, Independent, Telegraph, FT, International Herald Tribune and, last but not least, the Wall Street Journal Europe. I also check the American and French papers online.
They are ultra sensitive because they know they are in the wrong and no matter how non-threatening the protesters, cannot give a decent or sensible answer for what they are doing.rebeccariots2 wrote:Reminds me of the group of clergy who wanted to talk about foodbanks and the poor who were refused entry by Cameron's constituency office and had the police called on them.Outrage as Tory MP claims she felt threatened by a 'thug gang' of campaigning OAPs and disabled people
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ou ... lt-6179403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...Tory star Priti Patel has caused outrage by branding these harmless campaigners – some elderly or disabled – a “thuggish gang”.
Members of the group were shocked and distressed by the Employment Minister’s attack.
The campaigners, including a wheelchair user and at least two needing walking sticks, visited Ms Patel’s constituency HQ to urge her to protect the health service.
After they braved the rain outside her office in Witham, Essex, she fired off a furious letter to Unite union boss Len McCluskey, who she said was behind the campaign...
The remarks by Ms Patel, tipped as a future Tory leader, infuriated the group who say the planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will lead to NHS privatisation.
Malcolm Mead said: “At the age of 78 I never expected to be called a thug by my MP. Priti Patel should apologise and listen to our concerns.”...
Amazing what Tories seem to consider extreme these days. Good job use of those water cannon haven't been approved, eh.
It isn't a tax break.Willow904 wrote:A tax break designed to encourage business investment. Corbyn's proposal to abolish it has drawn criticism and there would certainly be far- reaching consequences of such a measure but it would be interesting to hear some non-partisan discussion of the pros and cons. Because business investment is currently woeful, so one questions whether this tax break is working and whether this tax break is, indeed, a sensible benefit.SpinningHugo wrote:
The media are interested in a story. "Labour elects Bennite" is just more interesting as a story than whether we go for Cooper or Burnham.
As far as I can tell he 'pays for it' through abolishing capital asset value depreciation. Or something.
ohsocynical wrote:I'm always reading about Corbyn defying the Whip countless times. Countless times I read the man on the street asking why the hell do so many MPs obey the whip especially on contentious issues or when it's against their constituent's interests.
Corbyn is a rebel...I like rebels.
And of course the depreciation is accounted for completely honestly and the company gets a sliding scale of benefit from their asset as its financial value reduces...SpinningHugo wrote:It isn't a tax break.Willow904 wrote:A tax break designed to encourage business investment. Corbyn's proposal to abolish it has drawn criticism and there would certainly be far- reaching consequences of such a measure but it would be interesting to hear some non-partisan discussion of the pros and cons. Because business investment is currently woeful, so one questions whether this tax break is working and whether this tax break is, indeed, a sensible benefit.SpinningHugo wrote:
The media are interested in a story. "Labour elects Bennite" is just more interesting as a story than whether we go for Cooper or Burnham.
As far as I can tell he 'pays for it' through abolishing capital asset value depreciation. Or something.
If I buy a fleet of lorries for £10m, I have a capital asset worth the same as the cash (ie at that point I have suffered no loss).
If the lorries have a 10 year life.
After 10 years, the company has a pile of scrap, and no asset worth £10m.
Companies account for the depreciation as a balance sheet loss each year.
The idea that this is somehow a corporate subsidy is just potty.
Not quite - didn't I explain this before? It's all to do with timing...SpinningHugo wrote: It isn't a tax break.
If I buy a fleet of lorries for £10m, I have a capital asset worth the same as the cash (ie at that point I have suffered no loss).
If the lorries have a 10 year life.
After 10 years, the company has a pile of scrap, and no asset worth £10m.
Companies account for the depreciation as a balance sheet loss each year.
The idea that this is somehow a corporate subsidy is just potty.
True, and I accept all that, but the £44bn figure included all capital depreciation didn't it, not just the advantage of treatment over book?RogerOThornhill wrote:Not quite - didn't I explain this before? It's all to do with timing...SpinningHugo wrote: It isn't a tax break.
If I buy a fleet of lorries for £10m, I have a capital asset worth the same as the cash (ie at that point I have suffered no loss).
If the lorries have a 10 year life.
After 10 years, the company has a pile of scrap, and no asset worth £10m.
Companies account for the depreciation as a balance sheet loss each year.
The idea that this is somehow a corporate subsidy is just potty.
Purchase of plant and machinery helps business by being able to write off the value of that purchase for tax purposes more quickly than it would appear from the asset itself i.e. for tax purposes it's (IIRC and it's been a while) 25% of its written down value, and for 'book purposes' its almost certainly straight line.
So, there's a cash advantage in that tax payments are reduced in the early years which are then reversed in later years. Of course, if you're constantly purchasing new plant & machinery as most businesses do, then effectively that cash advantage is ongoing.
The big question is that if it's not encouraging businesses to invest, why should we bother? Simply let the profit that appears in the accounts be the same for tax purposes and have companies pay tax on that.
SpinningHugo wrote:Ephemerix
I am reactionary.
I want to go back to the moderate sensible economic policies that characterised the Labour government from 1997 onwards Domestically, that was a great period. They got some things wrong (bank regulation) but fiscal and monetary policy were great (as were other things like immigration policy, fiscal tranfers to the poorest, education and health policies). Everything since has gone backwards in these areas.
So yes, quite happy to be called a reactionary. I'd take Blair and Brown back in government.
Thanks for the link to the blog piece by Sturdy Alex ... he starts with saying how much abuse he is copping for saying he supports Corbyn. I accept that's happening - trouble is people who support the other candidates are also copping a load of abuse. I see some of the stuff aimed at Kendall supporters and it's not worthy of Labour people ... and then I see stuff lambasting Burnham and Cooper for their piggy in the middleism and that's not nice either. It's like a nasty bun fight and won't get us anywhere.ephemerid wrote:SpinningHugo wrote:Ephemerix
I am reactionary.
I want to go back to the moderate sensible economic policies that characterised the Labour government from 1997 onwards Domestically, that was a great period. They got some things wrong (bank regulation) but fiscal and monetary policy were great (as were other things like immigration policy, fiscal tranfers to the poorest, education and health policies). Everything since has gone backwards in these areas.
So yes, quite happy to be called a reactionary. I'd take Blair and Brown back in government.
Good for you.
I wouldn't, not now.
This is what I feel - sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/on-labour-being-taken-over-by-lefties/
We need rule of law for society to function for the good of all. We need to toe the line for much of our lives and the one thing I've learnt from my 71 years is that compromise plays the biggest part in pretty much all we do whether it's family or work.ephemerid wrote:OK, Hugo, it's obvious to me that you don't like Corbyn or what he stands for.
It's obvious you think "he appeals to the naive young". Like me, aged 59.
As was your habit elsewhere, you pickily patronise to the point all discussion is a waste of time.
People are not a stupid as you think they are ("naive young", indeed) and you are not as clever and/or reasonable as you think you are.
I can't be bothered to argue with you. OneButtonMonkey's much better at it than I am.
I want change, I want hope, and I want a bit of hope for change. None of the other candidates are offering that. Corbyn is.
I remember Tony Blair's Big Conversation with voters in 2003. It was a conversation that never really happened, and the website was censored to the point that many contributors felt they had basically seen their questions re-written.
Six months after the invasion of Iraq, the many people who tried to mention the war during this Big Conversation were edited out of it. It was just another PR stunt aimed at pretending the government was listening.
Corbyn is actually having a big conversation on the ground. I do not necessarily agree with some of what he says; I do not necessarily think that he would make the best PM if he ever gets that far. However, I do think that his ideas on what an opposition should look like, what a united opposition could sound like, and his stated intention to make any cabinet he leads inclusive - and, for once, with posts including his up for re-election on a regular basis - he is putting the other candidates to shame, especially Cooper and Kendall who have behaved like children.
Maybe some of the younger supporters might be a little naive - but many of us are not.
How would you feel if I called you reactionary? It wouldn't be quite true, would it?
I know a lot of people in Labour locally, others still working in the NHS and public services, a few in the disability protest movement - all of whom are going to vote for Corbyn. They are far from naive, but like me, want to see a change in the direction our country's politics is taking.
HindleA is right when he suggests that people will vote for the candidate who is most likely - well, promises at least - to give them what they want; but for some of us, a balance has to be struck between that and the direction of travel we want to see generally.
Hugo - you have opined here and elsewhere that Labour lost the election because they had, in Miliband, a useless leader. I think it is vastly more complicated than that; and I have yet to see a real in-depth analysis of what went wrong. It wasn't all about the Scots, it wasn't all about Tory propaganda in the press; it wasn't all about Ed either.
There is no Corbyn love-fest going on. He is getting support because he's different. People aren't totally blinded by his charm or whatever it is - they want to hear what he has to say, and the standing room only wherever he speaks suggests they are liking what they're hearing.
You, of course, don't have to. What you also don't have to do is be so rude.
John Prescott @johnprescott 44m44 minutes ago
Ta-ra chuck. #RIPCilla
Well doneTobyLatimer wrote:Lending my temporary support to cast a vote for Corbyn.
