Labour leadership

Quoted from Grim74

Like you to look at the tables in the link regarding minimum pay and hear your comment, because it looks to me it's only the family's with 1 working parent that will be worse off ( and yes I agree this isn't fair) but it would encourage the partner that's out of work to seek employment.

As for for the second table it's clearly showing that the family will be much better off with the wage increase.

http://www.smf.co.uk/will-the-new-living-wage-make-up-for-the-cuts-to-tax-credits/

So the families with just one working parent will be the ones who suffer most? You are, perhaps, aware that there are almost 3 million single parent families in the UK at the moment?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2013/info-uk-households.html

So that's around 3 million families who tend to be amongst the poorest who are likely to be hit the hardest? Brilliant stuff, Osborne.

Also, note the SMF figures you list are for people who are in full-time employment. What about the part-time workers? Many of the jobs created over the past 5 years or so are part-time posts and many of the people in part time jobs aren't able to get full-time jobs or more hours. These are the ones who will suffer the most. An article with some underemployment statistics:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....ployed-10211368.html

So that's another 1.75 million or so workers who have the potential to be hit. Obviously many of the single parents will be among these so they aren't two entirely distinct groups, but it's certainly not good for them.

This probably explains why the IFS has been particularly critical of the budget and it thinks that 13 million families will lose out to some degree, with 3 million losing over £1,000 per year:

http://www.theguardian.com/bus.....0-worse-off-says-ifs

If you don't want to read the Guardian article, take it straight from the horses mouth:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/Budgets%202015/Summer/opening_remarks.pdf

Part of the conclusion:

Quoted Text

Given the array of benefit cuts it is not surprising that the changes overall are regressive – taking much more from poorer households than richer ones. Looking over the period of the consolidation as a whole, poorer households have done worse than those in the middle and upper middle parts of the income distribution though it remains the case that the some of the biggest losers have been those right at the very top of the income distribution.

Even if you want to cut tax credits, dumping on the poor in this manner is just disgraceful. An increase in the minimum wage is a great idea but giving with one hand and taking more with the other is a bizarre way of going about things.

Quoted from Manchester Mariner

Tony Blair's on the telly today looking slimy and telling everyone were they are going wrong. Of course he's more than qualified to do so what with his ultra successful recent form of envoying peace across the middle east.

He really is a despicable piece of shite.

It looks increasingly as though Blair's 'success' simply came about due to the incredible unpopularity of the Tories and their years in the wilderness after 1997. After all, Blair lost 3 million voters during his first term and another million in the next. The fact that the Tories lost over a million more votes between 1997 and 2001 shows how unpopular they were at the time and they barely increased their vote in 2005 either.

It makes you wonder if ten years with Labour out of power will be enough to destroy the Tories once again. My worry is that, if the Tories manage to squeeze their way back into power in 2020, just what sort of a state the country will be in by 2025. I truly shudder to think.

Quoted from Manchester Mariner

Tony Blair's on the telly today looking slimy and telling everyone were they are going wrong. Of course he's more than qualified to do so what with his ultra successful recent form of envoying peace across the middle east.

To be fair, for all the war-mongering he's the only Labour leader to win a General Election in the past 40 years and he won three of them. I'm not sure why he was considered qualified to be a middle-east peace envoy but I think he's pretty well qualified to at least have his views on the future of the Labour party listened to.

Quoted from Maringer

So the families with just one working parent will be the ones who suffer most? You are, perhaps, aware that there are almost 3 million single parent families in the UK at the moment?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2013/info-uk-households.html

So that's around 3 million families who tend to be amongst the poorest who are likely to be hit the hardest? Brilliant stuff, Osborne.

Also, note the SMF figures you list are for people who are in full-time employment. What about the part-time workers? Many of the jobs created over the past 5 years or so are part-time posts and many of the people in part time jobs aren't able to get full-time jobs or more hours. These are the ones who will suffer the most. An article with some underemployment statistics:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....ployed-10211368.html

So that's another 1.75 million or so workers who have the potential to be hit. Obviously many of the single parents will be among these so they aren't two entirely distinct groups, but it's certainly not good for them.

This probably explains why the IFS has been particularly critical of the budget and it thinks that 13 million families will lose out to some degree, with 3 million losing over £1,000 per year:

http://www.theguardian.com/bus.....0-worse-off-says-ifs

If you don't want to read the Guardian article, take it straight from the horses mouth:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/Budgets%202015/Summer/opening_remarks.pdf

Part of the conclusion:



Even if you want to cut tax credits, dumping on the poor in this manner is just disgraceful. An increase in the minimum wage is a great idea but giving with one hand and taking more with the other is a bizarre way of going about things.

I do take your point on single parents but how many of the 3m single parents are receiving child maintenance, do we have any credible estimates?
As an example my sister in law recently split from her husband and left the family home, she's a mother of two children working part time topped with benefits, she's moved in to a nice 3 bedroom house thanks to houseing benefits,
And she also receives a large monthly unaccounted payment from her ex as child maintenance/support.
And in her own words she's never had it so good, so I'm sure she and others in her situation will get by after the cuts.


I seem to of upset you Mariner, I apologise if that's the case, but you haven't exactly been warm to me, you jump on pretty much anything I have to say and try to shoot me down with an avalanche of stats and figures which are not always factual, you even go as far to call me a bullshitter!

I have taken more interest in this election since listening by chance to Jeremy Corbyn,

He is my type of man, caring for the less fortunate,

Another reason is Blair says he is the wrong man,

Ken Livingston ( red Ken ) said in all the years he had worked with Corbyn he never heard him say a word he did not believe in,

Not like the other 4 candidates who will say anything to get a vote.

Comrad Corbyn would have us all living in state housing and driving around in Lada's,
Seriously now I've heard him speak and I can see why the left fall for him he's a likeable old boy  like an old version of citizen smith power to the people and all that.

As much as I don't like Blair he is right on the money with Corbyn , after all No true lefty has won an election for years and this will continue for years to come.

Maybe no lefty has won an election for years,

BUT

None of the other 4 will win an election ever,

Ken Livingstone is an interesting example actually, because he really was a populist socialist leader of the GLC and later, a more mellowed out, moderate Mayor.  Ken got reelected though because he was a pragmatist; using business to fund his schemes and concentrating on publicly-owned transport.  I think it helped that he was implementing municipal policies in a strongly-Labour city.  Corbyn doesn't have that luxury and would struggle to appeal to enough people in the marginals, though I find him to be more honest and authentic than the others.

Quoted from Grim74

I do take your point on single parents but how many of the 3m single parents are receiving child maintenance, do we have any credible estimates?
As an example my sister in law recently split from her husband and left the family home, she's a mother of two children working part time topped with benefits, she's moved in to a nice 3 bedroom house thanks to houseing benefits,
And she also receives a large monthly unaccounted payment from her ex as child maintenance/support.
And in her own words she's never had it so good, so I'm sure she and others in her situation will get by after the cuts.

I seem to of upset you Mariner, I apologise if that's the case, but you haven't exactly been warm to me, you jump on pretty much anything I have to say and try to shoot me down with an avalanche of stats and figures which are not always factual, you even go as far to call me a bullshitter!

Any stats and figures I post to support my points are factual or based on academic research. The problem is that you tend to disregard anything for which you don't like the source. For example, I posted the academic research (by respected business school) which posited the reporting of the BBC gave a lot more air time to the Conservative Party. You immediately poo-pooed it! It was a study from a respected business school commissioned by the BBC Trust with all data and methodology published. Your only argument against it was a critique of the study by a right-wing anti-BBC think tank which was immediately rejected as nonsense by the report's authors. Don't you think that the right-wing press would have been all over it like a rash if there was any real impropriety involved? I certainly do.

It's good that your sister is doing OK and I'm sure certain other single parent families are fine as well, but this report would indicate that two thirds of single parents in 2012 weren't receiving maintenance:

http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content/1880/Why-child-maintenance-is-crucial-for-single-parents

Two million or so, then, many of whom will be badly hit by the cuts in tax credits.

I apologise for being snippy earlier but I've become used to glib replies from you which don't respond to many of my points. You surely have to admit that it seems you are fishing around for figures which prove the cuts to benefits won't be as punishing as most of us think? I've not seen you actively defend them as yet or explain why they will be of benefit to the economy and the millions of people affected by them?

Osborne uses the narrative that the cuts will force the 'shirkers' into work or persuade part-time workers to take on more work. This completely ignores the fact that there simply aren't all that many jobs out there. Underemployment is rife and, of course, many single parents don't have anybody to look after their kids.

On a slightly different note, it will be interesting to see what comes of the pledge to provide 30 hours of free childcare per week for 3 and 4 year olds. Last I heard, the childcare industry was noting that the government plans vastly underestimated the cost of provision and the figures just didn't add up. Will be interesting to see what the review promised for this summer discovers and whether funding changes.

As for the benefits, I'm certainly no expert as I've never had to claim any benefits personally, though I was lucky enough receive a free university education, unlike the current kids. Poor illegitimates.

As I'm not an expert, I'll go with the analysis of the IFS which reckons 13 million families will be worse off due to these changes. That's over 70% of families, if my calculations are correct. Still, at least the wealthiest 4% (not 6% from my earlier typo) can pass on more money to their kids now, so lucky them!

Quoted from Grim74

Comrad Corbyn would have us all living in state housing and driving around in Lada's,
Seriously now I've heard him speak and I can see why the left fall for him he's a likeable old boy  like an old version of citizen smith power to the people and all that.

As much as I don't like Blair he is right on the money with Corbyn , after all No true lefty has won an election for years and this will continue for years to come.

For all the right-wing hysteria about Corbyn, he seems pretty reasonable to me. Many of his views are shared by a majority of the electorate if the polling is to be believed:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....e-with-10407148.html

Earlier today he discussed his economic views to some economists and trade unionists and here's the only report I've found about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/pol.....ected-prime-minister

Looks like moderate left-wing policy to me there, no radical socialist plans or anything worrying for the man on the street. Slightly refreshing to have to hear about this second hand rather than having the speech published in a newspaper before it has even been made but then, on the other hand, he needs to disseminate his views to the wider public.

I disagree with him about the Nuclear deterrent which I feel still has a role to play in the current climate but think he's mostly on the ball in other respects.