2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Strokes]

The above sums MP's up.

Doesn't it just. Self serving pigs.

[Harry - LCFC]

 

@IsabelHardman If you’re going to have a low opinion of MPs, at least base it on what they’ve actually done wrong rather than a lie http://specc.ie/1A1dMmM 

[Webbo]

@IsabelHardman If you’re going to have a low opinion of MPs, at least base it on what they’ve actually done wrong rather than a lie http://specc.ie/1A1dMmM 

I thought it would probably be something like that. Too many people are willing to believe anything that will confirm their prejudices.

[purpleronnie]

Because the country can't sustain 250000 more people coming in every year.

we seem to be doing quite well.  Other countries can sustain it too.  Or maybe the myth that there's 'no room' is still believed.  I did chuckle about the recent low wage ukip rants, it's immigration...of course it is ukip but the bottom line they would do the least to actually raise it...or improve housing.   But immigrants are an easy target and people lap it up. How about helping workers with tougher regulations and trade unions. 

 

At least in his speech Cameron (finally) admitted immigration benefits Brtain and we all now now that benefit tourism is a myth.

[ADK]

Immigration benefits the rich

[Kopfkino]

we seem to be doing quite well.  Other countries can sustain it too.  Or maybe the myth that there's 'no room' is still believed.  I did chuckle about the recent low wage ukip rants, it's immigration...of course it is ukip but the bottom line they would do the least to actually raise it...or improve housing.   But immigrants are an easy target and people lap it up. How about helping workers with tougher regulations and trade unions. 

 

At least in his speech Cameron (finally) admitted immigration benefits Brtain and we all now now that benefit tourism is a myth.

 

Yeah we cope with 250000 more people coming in this year but some people look long term and realise that we won't be 'doing quite well' with the future population change forecast. And without wanting to stick up for UKIP too much, they have vowed to raise the income tax threshold the most. And how about we don't help workers with trade unions.

 

I can't think of anyone with half a braincell that has ever said that immigration doesn't benefit Britain or been afraid to admit that. Benefit tourism isn't a myth, maybe it doesn't exist to the extent people might think it does or thought it would but it still exists in some part.

[Benji]

Oh Jesus, this can't happen, surely:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30268496

[ADK]

Well she could do with the exercise.

[Guest MattP]

The above sums MP's up.

 

Quite the opposite, I'd say it sums up the general public, will believe absolutely anything you tell them if it's trying to make MP's, bankers, politicians etc look bad. It's quite incredible how people always want proof of the written word, yet are willing to believe anything if it's flashed up next to a picture.

 

That's your truthful 'alternative media' for you.

 

we seem to be doing quite well.  Other countries can sustain it too.  Or maybe the myth that there's 'no room' is still believed.  I did chuckle about the recent low wage ukip rants, it's immigration...of course it is ukip but the bottom line they would do the least to actually raise it...or improve housing.   But immigrants are an easy target and people lap it up. How about helping workers with tougher regulations and trade unions. 

 

At least in his speech Cameron (finally) admitted immigration benefits Brtain and we all now now that benefit tourism is a myth.

 

It's not a myth at all, it's not as widespread as a lot of the media say, but it's far from a 'myth'. Also UKIP are commited to raising the income tax bracket to £14,500p.a aren't they?

 

People need to stop lying about immigration as well, There is certainly an argument that EU migration benefits the nation (although as ADK points out it would probably be more accurate to say it benefits the rich) but overall immigration has cost Britain a fortune over the last 25 years. Even with the contribution of EEA migration it comes nowhere near to the dent non EEA miration has put onto our public finances (and this is a study from the left wing UCL)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

 

 

Oh Jesus, this can't happen, surely:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30268496

 

It can and it probably will, there is more than enough of the Labour and Black vote in London around now to get that racist pig elected.

 

Personally I hope it happens.

 

It would be comical, I don't really give a shit about London anyway and on a national scale having someone like that in office representing Labour would do a ridiculous amount of damage to the party.

[Alf Bentley]

Quite the opposite, I'd say it sums up the general public, will believe absolutely anything you tell them if it's trying to make MP's, bankers, politicians etc look bad. It's quite incredible how people always want proof of the written word, yet are willing to believe anything if it's flashed up next to a picture.

 

That's your truthful 'alternative media' for you.

 

 

It's not a myth at all, it's not as widespread as a lot of the media say, but it's far from a 'myth'. Also UKIP are commited to raising the income tax bracket to £14,500p.a aren't they?

 

People need to stop lying about immigration as well, There is certainly an argument that EU migration benefits the nation (although as ADK points out it would probably be more accurate to say it benefits the rich) but overall immigration has cost Britain a fortune over the last 25 years. Even with the contribution of EEA migration it comes nowhere near to the dent non EEA miration has put onto our public finances (and this is a study from the left wing UCL)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

 

 

 

 

Spot on re. the need to question the accuracy & source of "truthful" images passed around the internet. My few Facebook "friends" are largely intelligent people, yet they keep sending dodgy "true images", when they wouldn't accept questionable stats or factual claims in that way. Lazy minds and cynicism are a bad combination.

 

That's certainly an interesting graphic - not least the "UK natives" bit. I assume - and believe - that's ended up looking worse due to the inclusion of all the money used to bail out the banks, but even so..... I know we've been running a deficit most years for the past 35 years, but it can't just go on like that forever. Just shows how, regardless of political preferences, the main parties have been selling the electorate a lie for decades: namely, that we can have Swedish-level public services but only pay US-level tax. Something has to give. We'd all disagree over how much tax or spending there should be, but where I hope we'd agree is that you can't just keep spending more than you earn in the long-term (in the short-term you can - and arguably should, sometimes), but you can't run a deficit forever!

 

I think that the UCL data showed that immigrants from the Indian subcontinent 15+ years ago ended up being loss-makers for the Treasury overall, due mainly to earning low wages during their working lives (combined with low levels of female employment and large families, I imagine), but that more recent immigrants from outside the EEA (places like India etc) are not set to follow that trend, or not to the same extent - probably earning higher wages and more women working. In addition, changes from one generation to the next need to be taken into account over the long term. While 1st generation immigrants are more likely to be unskilled, on low pay and with large families requiring support by the welfare state, that's not usually true of the 2nd or 3rd generations, usually born here, more educated and westernised, and less likely to follow that low pay/large families trajectory. Not true of every group, of course, but has been true of most waves of immigration in developed countries (think of the history of the USA, overwhelmingly a country based on immigration).

 

Looks like UKIP's policy on the tax threshold is to raise it to £13.5k by the next election. It'll be interesting to see their figures - and those of the Greens - examined by the media during the election campaign. A quick estimate: £3.5k extra tax free @20% = £700 x 35m people (approx. number working F/T) = £24.5bn per annum added to the deficit!!! That's before factoring in UKIP's policies to introduce a 35p rate and only levy 40% above £55k, not to mention abolishing inheritance tax and abolishing tuition fees for all students of maths, science & engineering.... I'm not being politically biased here, as the Greens' policy commitments look like an unfunded wish list, too. I actually have no problem with it, as neither party will actually be in government and it gives an idea what their priorities are...at most, UKIP might have some slight influence over the next government, but probably won't. For that matter, Labour and Tories have been telling Joe Public what they want to hear (great public services AND low tax) for decades, so why not?!?

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

[Alf Bentley]

Excellent web site here for nerds interested in the 2015 election: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/

 

Although some of the contributors are clearly biased one way or another, a lot of them seem to really know their stuff. Could also be a good source of info for anyone inclined to lay a few bets on the election, particularly at the level of individual constituencies.

 

Have a look at the recent post about the Ashcroft polls, too: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/(need to scroll down)

 

Unbelievably, it sounds as if Clegg might be in trouble in Sheffield Hallam, despite having a massive majority (only 3% ahead of Labour in poll), though I'll believe it when I see it. Likewise, Farage hasn't got it in the bag in Thanet yet (though I'd expect him to win).

 

Interesting stuff: sounds like the Tories aren't doing particularly well at knocking off Lib Dem marginals; Labour are, in contrast, though they also aren't likely to take enough Tory seats to win a majority and are likely to lose seats to the SNP.

 

Must get down the stadium!!!

[Rincewind]

Out of interest does anyone have a valid reason to defend the DWP actions going by this story?

I would honestly like to hear a counter-argument. Before answering how would you feel if it happened to you or a relative?

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2014/05/02/man-with-cancer-told-to-give-up-treatment-and-join-work-programme-to-keep-benefits/

 

There is more than one case to consider.

[Alf Bentley]

Nothing we don't already know, to an extent, but an interesting piece (with video) on the growth in membership of UKIP, Greens and SNP:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29789725

 

People going so far as to join a political party is a different thing to protest votes in by-elections or whatever. It's of particular significance at a time when membership of the 3 "big" parties is declining long-ter.

A lot of people are frustrated with traditional politics and looking for an alternative - very different from mere disinterest or cynicism.

 

"Membership of political parties has been waning in the UK for years, but some of the smaller parties have been bucking the trend, with the SNP, UKIP and Greens seeing more voters turning to them. In a Daily Politics film, Adam Fleming looked at how millions of people used to be signed up, but the parties with the most MPs at Westminster are the ones shedding members today, with potential lessons from the National Trust.

 

Oh, well! It takes minds off frustrating football results and league tables....

[Rincewind]

I'm veering towards the greens but not keen on their way out environmental policies.Some of their thinking is how Labour used to be so I'm a mixture of left to middle. UKIP and the Tories are drifting to far to the right. I would have included tm otherwise.

Pity all the parties are so different instead of agreeing on a middle ground.

[Merging Cultures]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/dont-charge-poor-shoplifters-says-labour-mp-101329

 

Labour MP: Don't Charge Poor Shoplifters

Labour MP Michael Meacher has told LBC that poor people should not be charged for shoplifting because they have been “starved into it” by government cuts.

"If they feel that the evidence on which someone is being deprived of benefits, maybe for a long period of time, is acutely unjust, it does seem perfectly reasonable to me that they should make clear their reasons and refuse to convict.

"I think that's perfectly reasonable. That person should never have been put in that position at the time.

"The authorities should not have removed benefits and I think it is for juries - objective and reasonable people - to take a judgement as to whether that is the proper action.

"If they think it isn't, then of course that they are not going to conform."

[Jon the Hat]

Out of interest does anyone have a valid reason to defend the DWP actions going by this story?

I would honestly like to hear a counter-argument. Before answering how would you feel if it happened to you or a relative?

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2014/05/02/man-with-cancer-told-to-give-up-treatment-and-join-work-programme-to-keep-benefits/

 

There is more than one case to consider.

 

Poor bloke.  Mostly this begs the question why are we giving people who are fit to work and not working more money that people who are very sick indeed.  There are lots of costs involved in travel to hospital etc. which should be supported much more.

[Rincewind]

People should not be in a position where they feel they have to shoplift for food. Jailing or fining them is not going to solve the problem. Prevention is better than cure Maybe advice on money management would be better. Even those in work on minimum wage, part time and zero hours are struggling now. It is not just those on JSA or other benefits that are suffering.

[MooseBreath]

Out of interest does anyone have a valid reason to defend the DWP actions going by this story?

I would honestly like to hear a counter-argument. Before answering how would you feel if it happened to you or a relative?

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2014/05/02/man-with-cancer-told-to-give-up-treatment-and-join-work-programme-to-keep-benefits/

There is more than one case to consider.

Doesn't add up. He would go on ESA and that hands out more than JSA. Looks like a another disingenuous 'article' from another dodgy amateur website ken, if I'm honest. Just imo of course happy to be proven wrong.

[ADK]

I don't know why he was supposedly getting £140 a week as a jobseeker. The current JSA is £72.40 a week or £57.35 if you are under 25.

 

ESA is £101.85 or £108.15 a week depending on what grouping you are put into.

 

I'm somewhat fed up with these articles from the hard left, and they actually manage to make it look like jobseekers are getting double the benefit they actually receive.

[Benji]

Was hoping the change to stamp duty would not mean a change to the rates. Currently looking to buy and this change is not quite as nice as it could have been

[Jon the Hat]

Was hoping the change to stamp duty would not mean a change to the rates. Currently looking to buy and this change is not quite as nice as it could have been

 

Are you sure you did your sums correctly? Eg:  On the first £125k you pay zero, even if your house costs £300k.  On the next £125k (up to £250k) you pay 2%, then £250-£925k you pay 5%.

 

That means whereas you would have paid £9k on a £300k house you now pay only £5k.

[ADK]

I don't think it will affect prices though. It's a tiny boost to homeowners and a small set back to owners of expensive property.

[Benji]

Yer I've used the HMRC comparison calculator. I'm looking to buy in London so obviously it's not at the lower end of your email. I'll still save a couple of grand, but had the rates stayed the same but the threshold principle changed, it would be more like another 8 to 10 grand. Not a complaint on policy as what I'd have liked would likely cause a huge hit to HMRC, just a selfish wish on my part. Would have made getting a mortgage a lot easier as stamp duty is pushing me above what I want.

[Jon the Hat]

I don't think it will affect prices though. It's a tiny boost to homeowners and a small set back to owners of expensive property.

 

it will help people whose houses just tip over the previous absolute thresholds of £250 / £500k I expect.

[Benji]

People might stop attributing a few thousand to carpets and curtains!