Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Scottish Sun to “remain neutral” in next years referend

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Scottish Sun to “remain neutral” in next years referendum

According to a report in the Independent this morning Scotland’s biggest-selling newspaper, the Murdoch-owned, Scottish Sun, will remain neutral in the September 2014 independence referendum.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    Don't really see it as a story. The print media doesn't have that much strength. I recall in '94 (ish) the Scottish Sun came out in favor of independence.

    That didn't make much of a difference, I doubt this will.

    It's been nearly a decade since I resided there but my reading of the Scottish character is that they'll vote "no" to this, by around 60 / 40; I can't see the campaign making that much of a difference. It's identity politics.

    Shame really, As a Scot, I think it'd be the best long term thing for Scotland, although ultimate accountability for financial matters would lead to some tough choices in the near term.
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    I gave my views at end of previous thread on this matter.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    edited April 2013
    The "bedroom tax" would appear to be dreadful politics, a smart administration would have used a carrot instead of a stick.

    They would have targeted the housing providers instead of the tenants; they would have provided some funds to incentive people to move.

    In meta terms it would have cost 3/5th of bugger all, may even have been a way to spin it as cash positive and also solved the problem.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    The "bedroom tax" would appear to be dreadful politics, a smart administration would have used a carrot instead of a stick.

    I don't really understand why the central government is micro-managing things like this in the first place. If neither tenants nor councils have the incentive or the ability to move people into cheaper accomodation where it makes sense it sounds like there's a bigger problem with the system that needs fixing.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited April 2013
    @asjohnstone
    I agree - carrots are better than sticks every time. People's attachment to 'their' home may be irrational, but it's central to what we are and who we are. In addition, many single older people have family who visit and stop over: I can also think of many, many single fathers whose children stay (when the Court permits!) but who are nominally a single occupant of a 2/3/4 bed home.

    In addition, the cost of the move itself may be prohibitive.

    I'm not one to trot out the 'out of touch' meme on here, but this is one occasion where I think the Govt have good intentions, but have failed to consider the people involved and how they could be bribed, not beaten, into making this decision voluntarily: this smacks of the 'old people who live alone in their own homes should sell up and move to somewhere smaller for the good of the nation' Dictatorial State garbage which was being promulgated late last year.

    People's lives are defined by where they live and work and those with whom they interact in both areas of their lives: moving people willy-nilly is NOT a popular thing to do, nor is it even the RIGHT thing to d (though making them pay the full rent, very definitely IS).

    I'd also have a sliding rental scale - if you pay 40% tax, you pa 400% of the full commercial rent on your State-provided home, since you clearly have no need of 'social housing' as Council property is now known. If you pay standard tax, you pay the full commercial rent and only if you're on benefits do you pay the Social Rent.

    The truth is that social policy, through more divorce, single parent homes, people living longer independent lives, immigration and insane planning laws have combined to prevent the houses which people WANT to live in being built, and only limited numbers of slum housing being constructed ('slum' being defined as small roomed, badly-lit, over-crowded houses in areas of high social deprivation and/or near commercial/industrial premises. A typical modern 'development' on a brown-field site, in fact).

    We need many, many, many more low density, green-field, small, locally-designed, built and 'fitting in' homes: not at >16/acre but at 2-3 acre - but that causes NIMBYs everywhere to scream blue murder and Councils/Planners to seek to build the maximum homes (= 'affordable') on the minimum space - which is PRECISELY what the NIMBYs object to - and rightly so.

    If you increase demand and artificially restrict supply, you drive up prices, which successive Govts (and the Media) keep regarding as A Good Thing (celebrating house price rises, for example) when the reality is that such rises have been the one defining malady of the post 1970 period: homes should be affordable, FOR CASH, for a couple on a combined income of £50k+ pa who save hard for 3-5 years or so, whilst renting a property - or living with their parents.

    That would make a 2 bed modern terraced home with a modest garden priced around £30-£50k, or about one-quarter to one-fifth of its current market price.

    As it would have been prior to 1970, relative to incomes. Which came first - the rampant inflation in house prices, the lack of land on which to build suitable homes - or married mothers going out to work full-time to cover the cost of their massive mortgage?

    So much that we've done to ourselves over the last 60 years was predictable, preventable, and positively perverse in producing a population in persistent penury. The product of pygmy politicians pathetically pandering for paid-for popularity.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    The "bedroom tax" would appear to be dreadful politics,.

    But only when it applies to the social rented sector, not the private rented sector?

    On topic, Murdoch is covering his bets - at Leveson, Brooks repeatedly made the point that "the Sun listens to its readers" and that guides the line it takes.

    Nonetheless, no doubt this is "a victory for Eck!"
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    If a publication that has hitherto been opposed to independence is going to be neutral in the referendum, I'm struggling to see how that is a "blow for Alex Salmond" (although I appreciate that in the London media's eyes practically everything is a blow for Alex Salmond).

    The Independent's befuddlement on this matter is made clear by this phrase -

    "The SNP’s failure to continue being supported by the Sun..."

    Clearly they cannot understand the difference between support for the SNP and support for independence. In May 2011, the Sun was explicitly pro-SNP and explicitly anti-independence. There is nothing in this report to suggest that the paper will withdraw support from the SNP at the next Holyrood election.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    "The UK has avoided a triple dip recession, business group the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) has said.

    It believes a strong performance by Britain's service industries during the first three months of the year has kept the economy growing."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21998652
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "Nonetheless, no doubt this is "a victory for Eck!""

    Not a bit of it, Carlotta - if Scotland's biggest-selling newspaper has abandoned its pro-union stance in favour of studied neutrality, what else can that be but yet another "triumph for Dave!!!!"
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited April 2013
    @CarolottaVance
    Since we've not had a 'double dip' either, avoiding a 'triple dip' is rather easy.......
    OTOH, with no growth in GDP near-certain for 20-30 years or so, we'd better get used to Welfare cuts on an unprecedented scale.

    I'd also postulate, based on 'following its readers' that it will be strongly pro-UKIP in elections up to and including the Euro 2014 elections.
    That will then determine their position in GE2015 - pro UKIP, BOOers or room temperature support for the Cameroons.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Senior managers at the private bank, whose customers include a who’s who of British society, are being discreetly advised to reduce their holdings of high-yield bonds, according to an internal warning seen by The Daily Telegraph.

    Sales of high-yield debt have exploded this year as investors chase returns in an environment of historically low interest rates and rising inflation. In both Europe and Asia, high-yield sales have reached all-time highs. In January alone, Asian companies sold just over $9bn (£6bn) of high-yield bonds, a year-on-year increase of more than 6,000pc, according to data provider Dealogic.

    Fears have been raised as investors increase the risk they are taking on the bonds by borrowing further. Coutts’ investment strategy committee has become concerned at the use by some wealthy individuals of borrowed money to enhance returns from high-yield investments and is understood to have begun advising clients to avoid the practice.

    “If and when yields rise, the impact of these bonds, magnified with leverage, could lead to serious losses,” said one investment manager.

    The use of borrowed money to enhance returns has become particularly prevalent in Asia, where local and international private banks have used guarantees of access to loans to win business.

    This practice has led to fears of a new bubble in high-yield debt as investors buy riskier bonds using more borrowed money.

    Among the products causing most concern are CoCos – contingent convertible bonds – that either transform into ordinary shares or are wiped out when a bank’s capital levels fall below a given level.

    One of Britain’s leading bond funds has warned against buying CoCos, claiming they are “dreadful” for investors. “By losing all value prior to existing credit and equity investors, this bond is essentially providing insurance to every other investor. In short, investing in these bonds is like being in a reverse lottery where someone gives you one pound every week and then suddenly turns up demanding millions,” said Christine Johnson, manager of Old Mutual’s corporate bond fund.

    Lloyds Banking Group and Barclays have both issued CoCos. Barclays issued a $3bn (£2bn), 10-year bond in November that attracted orders of more than $15bn.

    But there are concerns that many investors have little appreciation of the risk. “Many buy based on superficial factors – such as the coupon [interest rate] and name rather than the terms and conditions of the bond,” said one senior investment strategist.

    Last week, the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee said it had identified a £25bn capital shortfall in British banks and it is likely that at least some of this will be raised through new sales of CoCos.

    “It appeals to senior management at the banks because it doesn’t dilute equity. And it appeals to regulators because it explicitly takes the pain… In short, good for regulators, good for bondholders but dreadful for those who buy it,” said Ms Johnson.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9965629/
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    edited April 2013


    But only when it applies to the social rented sector, not the private rented sector?

    Correct; the previous changes had zero political impact, there simply aren't millions of people with inter generational emotional attachment to "family homes" in the private sector.

    This should have been obvious to every one involved.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Germany: Europe’s hidden banking crisis by Louise Bowman

    Germany's banking system is in a sorry state, with institutions saddled with large non-performing and non-core assets on their books. It's no wonder Germany is in no mood for a pan-European bank regulator.

    According to consultant PwC, Germany tops the league tables for non-performing debt in Europe with €196 billion loans outstanding in July 2012. But just €4.3 billion of non-core asset sales have taken place in the country this year after negligible activity in 2010 and 2011. Even as banks elsewhere in the region come under growing pressure to shrink their balance sheets those in Germany show little sign of addressing the problem, short of transferring billions of euros worth of assets into state-owned bad banks.

    It is of little surprise that the country is so reluctant to see any pan-European bank regulator gain supervision over any other than its largest banks. “Germany’s banking system isn’t in great shape and it doesn’t also want the burden of supporting other countries’ banks,” one banker told Euromoney last month.

    “It has a network of co-operative and savings banks that sustain each other through a complex system of cross-guarantees and there is limited appetite to surrender supervision of this or to insure the deposits of other national banking systems.”

    Speaking at the Institute of International Finance meeting running alongside the IMF/World Bank meetings in Tokyo last month, Elke König, president of Germany's Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), laid bare some of the tensions, while paying lip service to the need for a single European supervisor.

    “Banks that are not systemically important should, as a matter of principle, continue to be supervised nationally because national supervisors are better able to assess the particularities of local banks and their environment,” König said. But at some stage the burden of non-performing and non-core assets on their books will have to be addressed by Germany’s banks.

    http://www.euromoney.com/Article/3110692/Germany-Europes-hidden-banking-crisis.
  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    I fail to understand the complex and misleading statements that constantly spew forth on social housing. Let's take London for example. Even if a massive social house building program started tomorrow, it would be limited by availability of space. Is anyone proposing concreting over every park for example? So, logic dictates that whatever social housing there is now, and can be planned for, is put to good use.

    Those at the top of the pile should include the frontline staff and families of the lower paid who man our essential services. Nurses, Police, Firemen, those involved in care services, those driving public transport etc etc. The rents don't need huge subsidies, they will end up cheaper than the private sector anyway. Secondly, those who have lived in their areas for all their lives/a greater part of them at least. Again, in most instances, full social rents are affordable. The elderly/sick/disabled etc get the housing benefit to help them anyway. My guess is after these two groups there won't be much left. The private rented sector is available for those choosing to live within London but unwilling or unable to buy. A gradual wind down of benefits (both in real terms and time limited),to all but those genuinely sick/disabled/old as mentioned before, will drive out those who really shouldn't ,due to costs, be living there. An increase in social housebuilding in the south east, at full social market rents can absorb those anyway.

    Those who just have their hands out demanding a free ride can have their kids taken into care, be sterilised and go live under Charing cross bridge. Although that should be illegal anyway, so I don't have a real answer for Mr/Ms Ponce, except for letting them all live in Labour Mps homes since they sympathise with them so much.

    There will be an inconvenience for those living the high life in the south east countryside, the increased populace must live somewhere. I'm not advocating thousands of caravan parks/travellers sites, far from it, no council should have an obligation to house or provide space for those not contributing to their local community in any meaningful way. But reasonable social housing targets for each area should be set and demanded to be met. And central Government better come up with a good way to pay for it all.

    Social housing should also not as a rule be permanent. In most cases it is a medium term solution for those not able to get into ownership or pay private rents. It is however essential. One of the great failures of Mrs Thatchers 'right to buy' scheme was not building enough replacement stock. Britain's population is not sufficiently mobile due to high rental housing costs.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876


    But only when it applies to the social rented sector, not the private rented sector?

    Correct; the previous changes had zero political impact, there simply aren't millions of people with inter generational emotional attachment to "family homes" in the private sector.

    This should have been obvious to every one involved.

    Private renters are also much more mobile, much more short term and, when push comes to shove, have much greater flexibility in terms of sub-letting - something most social/council housing contracts specifically prohibit.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I'm amazed how little people have commented on the parallels between the mansion tax and the "bedroom tax". Both are intended to get more efficient use of property and both have got underoccupiers pulling at the heartstrings rather than the braincells.

    Logically, the measures should be put forward by the same parties and opposed by the same parties.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    antifrank said:

    I'm amazed how little people have commented on the parallels between the mansion tax and the "bedroom tax". Both are intended to get more efficient use of property and both have got underoccupiers pulling at the heartstrings rather than the braincells.

    Logically, the measures should be put forward by the same parties and opposed by the same parties.

    Not sure about that. If, for example, you wanted to escape the bedroom tax you would need to find accommodation with fewer bedrooms. If there is none available, you have to take the hit whether you like it or not. On the other hand, if you live in a £2 million house you can quite easily downsize.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @SouthamObserver - The implementation of the "bedroom tax" has been pretty shoddy, not giving tenants anything like enough time to look into their options and not spending anywhere near enough time investigating which properties really were underoccupied. But the principle is sound.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited April 2013
    @antifrank. "I'm amazed how little people have commented on the parallels between the mansion tax and the "bedroom tax""

    I can't see any at all except perhaps that mansions have bedrooms. I remember Frank Muir being asked what a cow and a robin had in common and he answered that the only thing he could think of was that they both had four legs except for the robin which had two.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    antifrank said:

    @SouthamObserver - The implementation of the "bedroom tax" has been pretty shoddy, not giving tenants anything like enough time to look into their options and not spending anywhere near enough time investigating which properties really were underoccupied. But the principle is sound.

    Indeed. If it really were about the principle the necessary time to implement the policy effectively and fairly would have been taken.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    I wonder whether people could brick up their spare bedrooms like 17th century tax avoiders did to avoid the window tax?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Roger when the mansion tax (the idea of which I support) was being put forward last year, we got lots of heartrending stories of little old ladies being forced to move from the property in which they had lived for 590 years because they wouldn't be able to pay it. Some even wrote articles about it:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/9123806/After-40-years-why-should-I-be-forced-to-sell-my-property.html

    Now the same people who opposed the mansion tax are deaf to similar arguments being put forward by council tenants in relation to the "bedroom tax". But it suits neither side of the argument to point out the parallel.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Roger said:

    I wonder whether people could brick up their spare bedrooms like 17th century tax avoiders did to avoid the window tax?

    Some families would probably brick their relatives up before they escaped !!

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @MikeSmithson (threader)

    "not looking to back the SNP ahead of the 18 September vote"

    That is not the same as "will not back".

    If I was a cynical man I would say it means "willing to back, but my asking price has not yet been reached"

    As always, with a leak, ask 'cui boni?' I think Murdoch benefits more than Salmond from this leak.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    antifrank said:

    @Roger when the mansion tax (the idea of which I support) was being put forward last year, we got lots of heartrending stories of little old ladies being forced to move from the property in which they had lived for 590 years because they wouldn't be able to pay it. Some even wrote articles about it:


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/9123806/After-40-years-why-should-I-be-forced-to-sell-my-property.html

    Now the same people who opposed the mansion tax are deaf to similar arguments being put forward by council tenants in relation to the "bedroom tax". But it suits neither side of the argument to point out the parallel.

    Erm, one is a tax and the other isn't.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    @Antifrank. ...And written by Joan Bakewell too! If anyone wants to know what's happened to the old lefties the article is well worth reading. She approves of extra taxation for the rich but doesn't want to disturb her children's enormous nest egg by borrowing some of the capital from her mansion. Who'd have guessed...
  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    What bedroom tax? There is no tax. If you consider a change in the level of a state benefit to be a 'tax' then you should buy a dictionary and look up the definition of the word. Obviously the left can bend the meaning of anything to suite their whinging.

    For example, I consider myself to be of the 'right'. The opposite of which is wrong. Or left. Therefore the left are wrong.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Financier said:

    Senior managers at the private bank, whose customers include a who’s who of British society, are being discreetly advised to reduce their holdings of high-yield bonds, according to an internal warning seen by The Daily Telegraph.

    ... investment strategy committee has become concerned at the use by some wealthy individuals of borrowed money to enhance returns from high-yield investments and is understood to have begun advising clients to avoid the practice.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9965629/

    The decline of Coutts in the last 20 years would make poor David Robarts spin in his grave. It is the single thing that I am most angry with RBS for doing post the NatWest takeover. So I am not surprised about their willingness to put clients into exotic, but presumably high fee paying, investments.

    But margin lending? WTF?
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    What bedroom tax? There is no tax. If you consider a change in the level of a state benefit to be a 'tax' then you should buy a dictionary and look up the definition of the word. Obviously the left can bend the meaning of anything to suite their whinging.

    For example, I consider myself to be of the 'right'. The opposite of which is wrong. Or left. Therefore the left are wrong.

    If the government deliberately reduces someone's income - which is what the bedroom tax does - it feels and acts like a tax, so a tax is a fair description.

    The fact the Right is screeching (yet again) so loudly about this shows how they've lost this particular propaganda war.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    BenM said:

    What bedroom tax? There is no tax. If you consider a change in the level of a state benefit to be a 'tax' then you should buy a dictionary and look up the definition of the word. Obviously the left can bend the meaning of anything to suite their whinging.

    For example, I consider myself to be of the 'right'. The opposite of which is wrong. Or left. Therefore the left are wrong.

    If the government deliberately reduces someone's income - which is what the bedroom tax does - it feels and acts like a tax, so a tax is a fair description.

    The fact the Right is screeching (yet again) so loudly about this shows how they've lost this particular propaganda war.

    When the same policy continues under Ed Balls, the right knows that they have won the war, not just the propaganda. It will be like when New Labour became a convert to privatisation, outsourcing and restrictions on trade union activity.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    antifrank said:

    @Roger when the mansion tax (the idea of which I support) was being put forward last year, we got lots of heartrending stories of little old ladies being forced to move from the property in which they had lived for 590 years because they wouldn't be able to pay it. Some even wrote articles about it:

    The mansion tax is a bad tax because it is coming in at too high a level over and above an arbitrary threshold (£2m). Taxes should be low and hard to avoid - far better to have a lower rate on all residential property and use the funds to eliminate double taxation (stamp duty, the centrally mandated part of concil tax) and more economically damaging taxes (such as employer NICs for low paid workers etc)

    As for the little old ladies: just charge the tax on the basis of the 'last sold'/probate price. Yes, that will create a temporary anomoly in favour of older people, but it is self-resolving over time.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    tim said:

    The fact that the Tories are still whining about the term "bedroom tax" illustrates my point perfectly.
    Too stupid to own their policy.
    Too slow to spot the problem coming.

    Show me a poll which says the curbing the spare room subsidy is unpopular.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Roger said:

    I wonder whether people could brick up their spare bedrooms like 17th century tax avoiders did to avoid the window tax?

    The window tax was in place for 156 years.....

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited April 2013
    @Tim. "The bedroom tax could have been sold as a positive"

    It all dates back to when Margaret Thatcher decided to sell off nearly all our social housing. The damage she did in so many ways will take generations to work its way through the system.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    JohnO said:

    Show me a poll which says the curbing the spare room subsidy is unpopular.

    You don't seriously expect tim to answer, do you?

    I see his defence is the "(almost) complete nonsense" meme (Peter Kellner)
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    @Roger

    You conveniently forget that the state of social housing was appalling. Allowing people to buy their own homes improved dramatically the state of a lot of the nations housing stock as people got stuck into it with DIY. The first think that people did was change the front door.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Nice and sunny, and the snow's melting rapidly. Huzzah!

    Be nice to have a few nights of above zero temperatures.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013

    On topic, Murdoch is covering his bets - at Leveson, Brooks repeatedly made the point that "the Sun listens to its readers" and that guides the line it takes.

    Nonetheless, no doubt this is "a victory for Eck!"

    WHO made the point?

    No doubt that means it's a "Triumph for the fops!"

    LOL
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited April 2013
    @Tim. "I support the right to buy."

    It caused a housing inflation which has been the bane of everyone's life ever since and indirectly caused the banking crisis. It was one of her most short sighted policies which served no one except the Conservatives desire to hold onto power.

    Of course some of the future problems would have been alleviated if they'd built a new house for everyone they sold but that was quite unrealistic.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Morris_Dancer It's snowing in Hungary at present. This is not good news, because my swimming pool basement is already currently flooded.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    I'm sorry to hear that, Mr. Antifrank.

    Swimming pool basement? Not sure I've ever heard of such a thing.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    John Harris wrote an interesting piece on public opinion on welfare cuts in the Guardian yesterday:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/31/we-have-to-talk-why-some-want-benefit-cuts

    The left needs to think very carefully about where it makes its stand on welfare matters. If I were Ed Miliband, I would be majoring on competence rather than principle.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    I'm sorry to hear that, Mr. Antifrank.

    Swimming pool basement? Not sure I've ever heard of such a thing.

    I wish I hadn't heard of such a thing either. It contains the pump and the necessary electrics, stowed out of harm's way. Except that harm in the form of a rising water table has managed to find a way in.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    "The SNP’s failure to continue being supported by the Sun, which sells around 300,000 copies north of the border, will force a rethink of the “Yes” campaign’s strategy..”"

    No it won't.

    But the No campaign will keep rerunning Iain Gray's 'too poor, too wee and too stupid' campaign of 2011. How did that work out for them again from being strong odds-on favourites?


    'It is always said that Murdoch likes to back winners'

    Usually by Murdoch's editors. Not any more.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Is the flailing Heir to the Seventeenth Baronet really going to try to lecture the country on welfare today?

    Has the useless idiot no self-awareness?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    tim said:

    The fact that the Tories are still whining about the term "bedroom tax" illustrates my point perfectly.
    Too stupid to own their policy.
    Too slow to spot the problem coming.

    The lib dems might be watching Osbrowne toxify everyone in government through gritted teeth, but it's telling they are letting him own this as much as possible. Perhaps they have finally learned that an Osbrowne master strategy almost always ends in an incompetent debacle.

    The idiocy and complexity of this one won't take so very long to unravel and blow up in his face yet again.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    @antifrank

    Interesting piece but he is being naive if he thinks that contributory systems is the way to go. The sad truth is that generations of educational and aspirational failure have created a significant underclass who simply do not contribute to our society. In times past they would have worked, stolen or starved but politicians have up to now paid Danegeld to buy a quietish life from them by accepting intergenerational welfare.

    There are no easy answers to this and there will be hardship but there are two underlying forces supporting IDS's reforms. Firstly, leaving these people and their children to live desperately poor, pointless and miserable lives on benefit is a moral abhorance. On his good days IDS articulates that well.

    Secondly, we simply cannot afford it any more. Without the panacea of significant growth we have to cut government spending by at least £100bn a year, even if we increase taxes as well which we will. It is inconceivable that we will accept an ever rising benefit bill in such a scenario. In fact the political pressure to increase benefit cuts will only increase as other budgets get squeezed.
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    Mick_Pork said:

    "The SNP’s failure to continue being supported by the Sun, which sells around 300,000 copies north of the border, will force a rethink of the “Yes” campaign’s strategy..”"

    No it won't.

    But the No campaign will keep rerunning Iain Gray's 'too poor, too wee and too stupid' campaign of 2011. How did that work out for them again?


    'It is always said that Murdoch likes to back winners'

    Usually by Murdoch's editors. Not any more.

    The statement above is as silly as saying the Tory failure to implement the bedroom tax effectively will force a campaign change in the NO strategy. There is a tenuous link at best.

    With No ahead 56-44, losing with men already and momentum against the status quo over the last few months as the fear campaign hits a wall and Trident becomes a further issue where YES means nuclear weapon removal and NO means keep spending 100 billion on weapons 30 miles from Glasgow.

    The jam tomorrow campaign, no idea what it is but trust us (ha ha ha) seems to be starting very early too; it only came late on in 1979.
    Promises are made without clarity and therefore are never to be offered as decentralisationof tax is a threat to Wastemonster full stop, a bit like Corporation tax reduction promises in Northern Ireland :)

    I suspect YES will lead at some stage in 2013, until Kate has her baby and the link between the UK and the danger of an indy vote will be emphasised again. The fact the SNP is on the same side will not get too much coverage in the MSM I suspect.



  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Incidentally, for those eager for more differential front end grip, the next F1 piece on pb2 will be up on 8 April (early discussion of China).

    If Mr. Smithson's about, could he please clarify whether the threads there will be monitored by an existing mod (which worked very well on the last article) or whether I'll be given comment-axing powers? I'm not fussed either way, but it'd be useful to know. Cheers.

    And in incredibly unrelated news, just heard a rumour that a GOTY edition of Skyrim will be out in June(ish). To be honest, I'd be somewhat surprised given it came out (famously) 11/11/11 and there might be more DLC ahead.

    Unlike Dark Arisen for Dragon's Dogma (which I've decided not to buy, but if you don't have the original you absolutely should) I'd probably get a GOTY edition of Skyrim.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Tim

    And little Ed the Oxbridge educated multi millionaire completely out of touch with public opinion on benefit scroungers.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @DavidL I was struck by this passage:

    "As yet another poll – by YouGov, commissioned by the TUC – proved last year, people seem to hold wildly inaccurate views about the scale of benefit fraud and the proportion of spending that goes on people who cannot find work, and more. But in three years of regularly asking people what they think about the welfare state, I have never heard a single voice echoing the bien-pensant – and factually accurate – view that benefit fraud accounts for a tiny share of social security spending. Instead, people think it is a real, urgent problem, and everyone claims to know someone who does it."

    I expect the average man in the street would tell John Harris that the difference between detected benefit fraud and undetected benefit fraud was vast, and that it was the statistics that were wrong, not the general public's perceptions.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013



    The jam tomorrow campaign, no idea what it is but trust us (ha ha ha) seems to be starting very early too; it only came late on in 1979.

    It is?? The media certainly haven't been covering the crap out of it that's for sure. We've seen a few ludicrous contradictory statements about jam tomorrow from the likes of Ruth but nobody in the media went into any serious depth on them understandably enough. Since they were actually promising nothing whatsoever. Nor will any of the No campaign be believed that much more than the tories since all of them opposed putting more devolution on the ballot.

    They wanted an independence or nothing vote and that's what they've got.
    Pity they don't appear to have thought that one through, isn't it? ;)

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited April 2013
    "Is the flailing Heir to the Seventeenth Baronet really going to try to lecture the country on welfare today?"

    I suspect it's a tradition going back to the First Baronet but you've succinctly described the Conservative's dilemma. Completely inappropriate people in the vanguard of possibly a worthwhile cause. Reminds me of "How Green were the Nazi's?"
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    antifrank said:

    @DavidL I was struck by this passage:

    "As yet another poll – by YouGov, commissioned by the TUC – proved last year, people seem to hold wildly inaccurate views about the scale of benefit fraud and the proportion of spending that goes on people who cannot find work, and more. But in three years of regularly asking people what they think about the welfare state, I have never heard a single voice echoing the bien-pensant – and factually accurate – view that benefit fraud accounts for a tiny share of social security spending. Instead, people think it is a real, urgent problem, and everyone claims to know someone who does it."

    I expect the average man in the street would tell John Harris that the difference between detected benefit fraud and undetected benefit fraud was vast, and that it was the statistics that were wrong, not the general public's perceptions.

    The issue arising from stories such as the west country single mother having a six bedroom house for her is not fraud. It is that non fraudulent abuse of the welfare system is rampant. It is not that the rules are broken, but that they are bonkers.

    This is a widespread view, though it is very difficult to design a system that benefits the needy while motivating the lazy. IDS is on the right track, though I worry about the implementation.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited April 2013
    A tim style tax riddle cum bet - £53 in monopoly money for the winner.

    My house has 4 bedrooms but one is a loft conversion and the other is a garden room with a bath but no central heating - how much do I owe HMRC in tax ?

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    @antifrank

    Agreed. And of course large scale advertising campaigns encouraging people to report benefit fraud increases that perception.

    Presumably the last government thought they had to be seen to be tough on the fraudsters to give themselves some cover when trying to explain the increases. They were undoubtedly vastly more alert to perceptions and media images than the present government but that did not make them any more competent and they had even worse policies.

    I suspect from my experience that the truth is that the public perception of fraud is rather greater than the reality. The gross abuse of incapacity benefit really annoyed people and probably fed that as will the headlines of the last few days.

    There is so much misery and failure behind those headline numbers. How did we create so many incompetents unable to administer their own lives without constant intervention? The welfare careerists have a lot to answer for.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Why should any politician live off £53 ? they've got off their rear and made a career for themselves and their family.

    An argument for bubblistas and communists only.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    @DavidL

    "There is so much misery and failure behind those headline numbers. How did we create so many incompetents unable to administer their own lives without constant intervention?"


    You only have to spend some time in any of the big sink estates to get a sense of the general misery people are living in. I can't see how any amount of money given directly to them will improve their lives, but Louise Casey's Troubled Family initiative stands a better chance of stopping the rot.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @TGOHF

    Where does this £53 figure come from? Is it after a notional deduction for bills and housing costs?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I see Mr Hancocks' and Mr Clegg's troubles aren't going away

    "The wording of the letter that landed on Nick Clegg’s desk almost exactly two years ago makes clear the desperation of its sender.

    Complaining about the ‘improper’ behaviour of one of his MPs — renowned womaniser Mike Hancock — it was sent by recorded delivery on March 9, 2011, to the Liberal Democrat headquarters in Cowley Street, Westminster.

    ‘What he did to me is shocking,’ wrote 37-year-old Annie from Portsmouth in Hampshire — whose real name can’t be revealed for legal reasons.

    She had emailed the Deputy Prime Minister three weeks earlier, detailing her complaints about Hancock, whose sexual exploits have been the basis of newspaper stories for the past three decades.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302606/Mike-Hancock-MP-Sex-pest-Lib-Dem-MP-mother-help-Nick-Clegg-ignored.html#ixzz2PIGn40yq

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Plato said:

    @TGOHF

    Where does this £53 figure come from? Is it after a notional deduction for bills and housing costs?

    Its the figure the Beeb threw at IDS. Suspect if it was £153 then tim would still be whining that it wasn't enough to buy an new X-box for the kids in poverty.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Fraser explains why tim , Ben et al are so whiny ..

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2013/04/why-the-left-are-so-angry-about-todays-welfare-reform-because-its-popular-and-right/

    "But here’s the thing: the welfare reform is not causing mass outrage. Of course, Polly Toynbee is furious – but to the bafflement of the chattering class, the masses seem to think the reform is long overdue. Study after study confirms this. There was that YouGov/Prospect study suggesting that three in four people (and a majority of Labour voters) think that Britain spends too much on welfare.

    In fact, popular opinion seems even more hawkish that the average Tory MP. You’ll struggle to hear any self-respecting MP using the word “scroungers,” for example, but two in five think that applies to a significant minority of welfare claimants. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that attitudes to those on welfare are even more negative than attitudes towards the rich."
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Golly - this is getting ugly re UKIP/Farage. This claims to be a quote..

    https://www.facebook.com/SajjadKarimMEP/posts/432093776884079
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    Little Ed completely out of touch with public opinion.

    'According to ComRes, 64% of Britons believe the benefits system either does not work well or is "failing", and 40% of us think that at least half of all benefit recipients are "scroungers". Ipsos Mori reckons 84% of its respondents either agree or tend to agree with stricter work-capability tests for disabled people, and 78% are in accord with the idea that benefits should be docked if people turn down work that pays the same or less than they get in benefits.'
  • A breakdown of it appears elsewhere, but the guy was claiming to work 50-70 hour weeks for a shade under 3,000. I fear there's more to the story.

    Even the 53 figure has been suggested as 'in total' when retweeted and forwarded on, whereas its 53 after rent and bills, which, while not fun, is not outside of the bounds of possible.


    (I don't have a pound sign on the keyboard)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    @JonathanD

    It is tricky and new ideas are desperately needed. A little example. Dundee City Council, like most councils, used to spend huge amounts of money suing and obtaining decrees for eviction from those who fell into rent arrears. This was from many angles completely pointless. The state was paying for lawyers to sue those without money, defended by legal aid solicitors in publically funded courts to get decrees that were not normally enforced (and when they were they would move into private rented accomodation and claim more housing benefit).

    The problem was nearly always that the defenders in these cases qualified for Housing benefit but something had gone wrong with their claim. So the Council employed housing officers to go and see these people and fill their forms in for them so they got housing benefit. The council got more rent, the courts wasted less time and the legal aid bill was reduced. Win, win yes?

    Except that we are once again accepting that there is a significant chunk of our society that is so functionally illiterate and incompetent that they cannot complete a form correctly without help. We are accepting that it is better just to do things for them. It is better if they are not held responsible for their own lives. I find this difficult: is this a good thing or a bad thing to have done? What will their children learn from this?
  • I also saw someone referring to yesterday as Black Monday.

    At some point, this hyperbole has to come back and bite people on the arse. It is actually mental.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    john_zims said:

    Little Ed completely out of touch with public opinion.

    'According to ComRes, 64% of Britons believe the benefits system either does not work well or is "failing", and 40% of us think that at least half of all benefit recipients are "scroungers". Ipsos Mori reckons 84% of its respondents either agree or tend to agree with stricter work-capability tests for disabled people, and 78% are in accord with the idea that benefits should be docked if people turn down work that pays the same or less than they get in benefits.'

    The 40% of respondents who believe that at least half of benefits recipients are scroungers are a lot more out of touch than Ed Miliband.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    "There is so much misery and failure behind those headline numbers. How did we create so many incompetents unable to administer their own lives without constant intervention?"


    Well, first the tory party elected as leader a second rate Blair impersonator who puts incompetent chums before everything else, then Cammie failed to win a majority, now we see the inevitable result such a course of action created. With omnishambles Osbrowne toxifying everything in sight and a bunch of bumbling incompetent amateurs reliant on their MPs expenses.


    Indeed, without their MPs expenses it's a wonder that any of them could manage to go through an entire day, though the trust funds of the most inept do of course help.

    :)
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @BoredInParis

    The hyperbole about the NHS yesterday was epic - I've no idea what it was supposedly about and therefore totally failed the credibility test as a position by the Left.

    So far the NHS has had 24hrs to be saved, 3 months and is now officially dead - yet its still here. Talk about crying wolf - and that's before Stafford et al.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Oh dear the tea party tories are whining about the NHS again.
    They never ever learn.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    @DavidL

    "Except that we are once again accepting that there is a significant chunk of our society that is so functionally illiterate and incompetent that they cannot complete a form correctly without help."


    It would be interesting to know whether there has been an increase in this part of society or if as society in general has complexified, those unable to cope have become more apparent. Having lived by Easterhouse for a while, the downwards spiral people can take in even a couple of generations is troubling. The individuals who are successful tend to have strong family support from several generations - if you don't have that support then its very hard to recover.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    tim said:

    @BoredinParis

    Tory twitter fools questioning the £53 figure are missing the point.
    IDS said he could live on it, he owns it now and has guaranteed that the fops will be asked the same question.

    Indeed. Now we have an epic battle of the fops for who will be least believed by the public as they try to pretend they could live on that or concede they are ludicrously out of touch.

    The quiet man has turned up the volume and the fops aren't going to like it one bit. ;)

    A more cynical person might think this was IDS cunningly putting pressure on the likes of Osbrowne and the treasury to open the coffers wider for his reforms, but the banal truth is IDS was never that competent and it's own goal time again for the idiots.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    edited April 2013
    'Punters make NO a strong odds-on favourite. The best you can get is 2/7.'

    And yet the best the cotton wool balls Unionists on here will offer is evens? Strange...

    On topic, assuming one believes the Independent has any real insight into the editorial policy of the Sun, I still think they'll have to come out one way or another in the campaign run up to the referendum or give up any pretence of being a player in Scottish politics. Rupert will wait and see who looks likely to win, he knows the days of making winners (if they ever existed) are long past. I'll take neutrality till then, it's an improvement on what the rest of the MSM are offering.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim is missing the point - nobody should want to live on benefits only.

    Polls are against you - take your fingers out of your ears.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    ""Except that we are once again accepting that there is a significant chunk of our society that is so functionally illiterate and incompetent that they cannot complete a form correctly without help.""

    Bit harsh on IPSA as their expenses forms have to cater to every MP from the Eric Joyces of the world to the tragic Oliver Letwin's and even omnishambles Osbrowne himself.

    :)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633


    tim is missing the point - nobody should want to live on benefits only

    As ever you've missed the point that the bloke is working.
    As are 93% of new housing benefit claimants.

    Wait - you are suggesting people should get to choose how big a house the state provides for them ?

    Is rEd going to nationalise Location Location Location ?


  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    Telegraph: “Benefits reform: 'welfare victim' who dared Iain Duncan Smith to live on £53 is a gambler”

    Perhaps like me he lurks around here occasionally :)

    “A father who dared Iain Duncan Smith to live up to his claim that he could survive on £53 a week has been revealed as a gambler and a self-confessed 'ducker and diver'.
    David Bennett, 51, told the BBC he was struggling to survive after his housing benefit was cut, but it has emerged that the divorced father of two is a regular gambler who used part of an inheritance from his grandmother to play poker.”
    ...
    “On his Twitter account, Mr Bennett's profile says 'Poker player, self-employed ducker and diver', although he changed this yesterday to 'Market trader', and adds that his hobbies are 'football, poker and beer’.”
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    RT @djfxtrader: *Euro-Zone Jobless Total 19.071 Million, Highest Since Records Began
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Southam Observer

    'Given that the average worker is having to make do with 1pc increase in salary, is it really cruel to impose a 1pc rise to welfare payments? Especially after benefits rose three times faster that salaries last year? It’s no surprise that more a YouGov/Sunday Times poll found the 1pc rise to welfare enjoys a 10-point lead in support. Ironically, welfare reform is one of the most popular things this government is doing. And it’s never more popular than amongst those on low wages, who share housing estates with the welfare-dependent and can see the injustice. You need to look at Britain through the columns of a spreadsheet not to see the wider point of what’s going on.'
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    The rate of unemployment in the eurozone hit 12% in February, a record high, official figures have shown.

    The number of people unemployed in the 17 member states rose by 33,000 during the month, to hit 19.07 million, the statistics agency Eurostat said.

    The highest rate was 26.4% in Greece, although the most recent figure for the country was from December.

    Separately, figures confirmed a deterioration in the eurozone's manufacturing sector in March.

    The final Markit manufacturing PMI index for the month fell to 46.8, slightly higher than an initial estimate but below the 47.9 recorded in February. Any score below 50 indicates a contraction in the sector.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22000996
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    May as well confess that I'm wobbling in my pro-Europeanism.
  • BenM said:

    May as well confess that I'm wobbling in my pro-Europeanism.

    There is greater joy in heaven over one sinner...

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    Given that the Tories only growth strategy now relies on £130 Billion of state subsidised sub prime mortgages it's probably not good time for an Osborne fan to be wanting the state out of the housing market.


    Given that Labour support the 1% benefit rise and have u-turned on the £6k cap for Uni fees - are you predicting that there will be a promise to reverse the bedroom tax will be reversed in the Labour 2015 manifesto ?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Plato said:

    Golly - this is getting ugly re UKIP/Farage. This claims to be a quote..

    https://www.facebook.com/SajjadKarimMEP/posts/432093776884079

    That's potentially libellous if he can't back it up.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Indeed.

    RT @jameschappers: Youth unemployment hits 58% in Greece and 56% in Spain. A generation being laid to waste to help save the euro.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Roger said:

    @Tim. "The bedroom tax could have been sold as a positive"

    It all dates back to when Margaret Thatcher decided to sell off nearly all our social housing. The damage she did in so many ways will take generations to work its way through the system.

    Except she reduced the number of households living in council housing by the same amount as she reduced the number of council houses.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    £53 a week probably is enough to scrape by week after week if you are very careful with your money. But whether that amount is conducive to helping people back into work is another matter entirely. For example, unemployed people willing and able to move to a different part of the country in order to get work just can't based on that amount. You are talking about a sizeable proportion, if not all, of a week's income just to travel to an interview. That must be something for which help can be provided.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited April 2013
    Morning all,

    Just to let you know, Re my biopsy results, that I got them last week and I DON'T have cancer!

    I do, however, have a pre cancerous condition so I'm now lined up for an operation at the end of the month, followed by years of on-going care and possibly more surgery, but given the alternative I don't think it's too bad an outcome.

    Thanks to everyone who's shown concern and interest, especially NickP. :)

    Now, on to REALLY important stuff like...

    The Bedroom Tax!!!!!!!!!

    ;)
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    This housing benefit debate needs to be a bit more expansive. As Tim has pointed out, most of those receiving it are in work. If they were not receiving help, then you would not have housing that the low paid could afford. Where I live, a small two bed house costs about £700 per month to rent and there are not enough of them, as they are rented out again as soon as they become available.

    The UK needs to have millions of extra houses built, with the state becoming a major landlord again. This should reduce the level of rent and therefore the housing benefit bill will reduce as a result. This is definitely something that Labour should be researching now, with a policy ready to be implemented, if they win the next election. The main problem with this policy, is that those who already own homes or live somewhere nice, are not keen on having major developments built near them. Labour should look into having more people living within towns and cities. Where the shops have closed down, they should be looking at building flats to replace them. If we have affordable properties to rent in towns/cities, then the low paid will be living near transport hubs, so they don't have to commute from out of time housing estates.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    £53 a week probably is enough to scrape by week after week if you are very careful with your money. But whether that amount is conducive to helping people back into work is another matter entirely. For example, unemployed people willing and able to move to a different part of the country in order to get work just can't based on that amount. You are talking about a sizeable proportion, if not all, of a week's income just to travel to an interview. That must be something for which help can be provided.

    Don't forget toothpaste for the job interview - you can't afford that and a bus ticket and gambling on £53 a week.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    £53 a week probably is enough to scrape by week after week if you are very careful with your money. But whether that amount is conducive to helping people back into work is another matter entirely. For example, unemployed people willing and able to move to a different part of the country in order to get work just can't based on that amount. You are talking about a sizeable proportion, if not all, of a week's income just to travel to an interview. That must be something for which help can be provided.

    I would be very happy for the taxpayer to subsidise travel for interview purposes for the long-term unemployed.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    @Gin1138 Good to see your news, I hope the op goes well.
  • Plato said:

    Golly - this is getting ugly re UKIP/Farage. This claims to be a quote..

    https://www.facebook.com/SajjadKarimMEP/posts/432093776884079

    'Golly' probably wasn't the best choice of phrase there ;-)
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    I still don't understand how a cut to a subsidy can be a tax?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    TGOHF said:

    £53 a week probably is enough to scrape by week after week if you are very careful with your money. But whether that amount is conducive to helping people back into work is another matter entirely. For example, unemployed people willing and able to move to a different part of the country in order to get work just can't based on that amount. You are talking about a sizeable proportion, if not all, of a week's income just to travel to an interview. That must be something for which help can be provided.

    Don't forget toothpaste for the job interview - you can't afford that and a bus ticket and gambling on £53 a week.

    Yes, I do understand that the unemployed are an hilarious joke, but if you want people to move to where the jobs are they have to have the means to do it.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    hucks67 said:

    The UK needs to have millions of extra houses built, with the state becoming a major landlord again.

    I agree with the first part, but why does the state need to become a landlord? If it charges market rates, it's just an additional responsibility for politicians that struggle to deal with everything else on their plate. If it charges below market rent, then it quickly becomes an inefficient system after a few years, as some very poor people remain without them while those whose incomes rise to middle class levels continue to get subsidised.
This discussion has been closed.