They have also increased the minimum wage and taken the lowest earners out of tax.
Barely so far (not that I agree with large increases, as they hurt small businesses - I much prefer tax credits, especially since they can be targeted) and, with regards taking, "the lowest earners out of tax", a large chunk of that will have been taken by the VAT increase, especially those who don't work full time.
Osborne's target of spending 35% of gdp by 2019 would be the same rate as Thatcher left and Blair spent in his early years, while below the OECD average it would also be the same rate as Australia
35% in the context of increasing pension costs and NHS spending, the two biggest government outlays, due to an aging population represents a large net reduction in government spending elsewhere since Thatcher.
But I assume you already know that and are being disingenuous.
The Tories will talk about and maybe deliver largely irrelevant tweaks to tax bands of £100-£200 per year for the majority but the "spectaculars" will be saved for the rich and the corporations. It will cut public services nationally and locally through cuts in support for councils so that those who rely on those services can no longer benefit from them. They will cut and cut and IF they deliver a surplus by 2020...they will attempt to buy the election with tax cuts and promises of more. The question will be whether, at the end of that process, they have persuaded enough of the electorate to turn it's back on the "have-nots".
Whoops, I forgot council tax cuts, thanks for reminding me!
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
This isn't a very sensible point, since the Conservatives have indeed cut the deficit substantially, while the American Republicans usually increase it. It seems Labour supporters still can't decide whether the Tories are cutting the deficit too fast or not fast enough.
The Conservatives claim to be 'cutting the deficit', introducing swathing cuts and a large VAT rises while spending that income on Of course, Conservative supporters know this, and enjoy disingenuously selling the lie that the Conservative's priority is the deficit when it's anything but, aided by a compliant press. The Tories want eternal austerity so they can hide their ideological policies from the public.
The Tories do not want eternal austerity and you watch the change in narrative from 20016-2020 with lots of tax breaks for the lower and middle paid and a more socially aware Tory party easily stepping into the void left by Labour
I'll believe it when I see it. The right has been selling this as 'moderate' government while they have been gutting the BBC, privatising Royal Mail, cutting tax credits, swathing cuts to government, tougher benefit sanctions, increasing university fees to some of the highest in the world, forcing schools into becoming 'academies' etc. This current government is further to the right of Thatcher on the overwhelming majority of issues while pretending themselves as being moderate.
The heaviest burden, in terms of changes in taxation, and cuts to benefits, has been borne by the richest 10% since 2010.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
They have also increased the minimum wage and taken the lowest earners out of tax.
Barely so far (not that I agree with large increases, as they hurt small businesses - I much prefer tax credits, especially since they can be targeted) and, with regards taking, "the lowest earners out of tax", a large chunk of that will have been taken by the VAT increase, especially those who don't work full time.
Osborne's target of spending 35% of gdp by 2019 would be the same rate as Thatcher left and Blair spent in his early years, while below the OECD average it would also be the same rate as Australia
35% in the context of increasing pension costs and NHS spending, the two biggest government outlays, due to an aging population represents a large net reduction in government spending elsewhere since Thatcher.
But I assume you already know that and are being disingenuous.
Tax credits just subsidise low wages. In terms of pensions and healthcare ultimately we need to encourage those who can afford it to take out insurance as most other western nations do, spending ever more on an ageing population is not viable
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
A map of postwar Polish population movements. A high proportion of the population of the "recovered territories" of Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia came from the East, and leapfrogged the people in central Poland.
The heaviest burden, in terms of changes in taxation, and cuts to benefits, has been borne by the richest 10% since 2010.
"Richest 10%"? I seriously doubt it.
Highest earning 10%? Perhaps, depending on how you measure it (e.g. how do you quantify the changes to unemployment benefit which make sanctions more likely), and, of course, that will excludes the incoming tax credit cuts.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
Every poll has show backing for the benefits cap, inheritance tax cut, increase in the minimum wage and taking the lowest earners out of tax, on tax credits opinion is largely split, Tories generally in favour, Labour voters opposed
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
A map of postwar Polish population movements. A high proportion of the population of the "recovered territories" of Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia came from the East, and leapfrogged the people in central Poland.
Does not show unfortunately however regardless of the population movement 50 years ago tonight's results show a clear East West divide
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
Tis already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
A map of postwar Polish population movements. A high proportion of the population of the "recovered territories" of Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia came from the East, and leapfrogged the people in central Poland.
I tend to side with HYUFD on this one, because Poland is not the only country to exhibit electoral behaviors that correlate strongly with pre-war borders, Romania and Ukraine have that too with the pre-1918 and pre-1939 borders appearing on electoral maps. In some cases the divide is new like in Germany which still shows large differences in east and west Germany along the 1949 border, or it could be centuries old like Tuscany vs the Kingdom of Naples showing up on Italian electoral maps even if Italy was unified in 1860. Not to mention the USA with the conservative confederacy.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
Look at the freakin news...tax credits, Big G
The tax credits will go through though maybe with tweaks but over the Parliament no one will lose the exaggerated sums you use
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
Kirchner's preferred successor, the centre-left Daniel Scioli, leads in exit polls tonight for the first round of Argentina's presidential election. It is unclear if he has run by a wide enough margin to avoid a run-off with his centre-right rival, Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-34634210
No Conservative politician dare say it publicly of course but one of the biggest outcomes from the tax credit changes is going to be very significant behavioural change, ie:
- much more incentive for low earner couples (where both work) with kids to stay together - low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
Of course they want to save money but I'm sure the above is a big part of the reason why they are doing this.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
Tis already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
A map of postwar Polish population movements. A high proportion of the population of the "recovered territories" of Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia came from the East, and leapfrogged the people in central Poland.
I tend to side with HYUFD on this one, because Poland is not the only country to exhibit electoral behaviors that correlate strongly with pre-war borders, Romania and Ukraine have that too with the pre-1918 and pre-1939 borders appearing on electoral maps. In some cases the divide is new like in Germany which still shows large differences in east and west Germany along the 1949 border, or it could be centuries old like Tuscany vs the Kingdom of Naples showing up on Italian electoral maps even if Italy was unified in 1860. Not to mention the USA with the conservative confederacy.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How much are they getting already? To use words such as "catastrophic" is utter nonsense, of course its not going to be easy, but lets be sensible... this isn't Greece.
No Conservative politician dare say it publicly of course but one of the biggest outcomes from the tax credit changes is going to be very significant behavioural change, ie:
- much more incentive for low earner couples (where both work) with kids to stay together - low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
Of course they want to save money but I'm sure the above is a big part of the reason why they are doing this.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
Those part time mums will have to spend less time quaffing wine and watching daytime tv.
No Conservative politician dare say it publicly of course but one of the biggest outcomes from the tax credit changes is going to be very significant behavioural change, ie:
- much more incentive for low earner couples (where both work) with kids to stay together - low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
Of course they want to save money but I'm sure the above is a big part of the reason why they are doing this.
Absolutely agree with this.
And the vast majority of the public would agree to.
It's just a shame they don't feel able to be honest and say it - but I fully understand why not - as they would be accused of social engineering etc etc.
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How much are they getting already? To use words such as "catastrophic" is utter nonsense, of course its not going to be easy, but lets be sensible... this isn't Greece.
Couple on £22,000 two kids will lose £2,400...do you think this people have savings to dip in to? Do you think they find it easy to pay their rent or their mortgage now...they will lose £200 per month. There was a study a while back detailing the effect of a possible interest rate rise next year...this is equivalent to a 2% rise in interest rates
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
A map of postwar Polish population movements. A high proportion of the population of the "recovered territories" of Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia came from the East, and leapfrogged the people in central Poland.
Does not show unfortunately however regardless of the population movement 50 years ago tonight's results show a clear East West divide
Yes, and there are real differences when travelling between the old Hapsburg, Czarist and Prussian derived areas of modern Poland. These changes may well be more to do with landscape and industry rather than with the origins of peoples 70 years ago. Few survivors from that period would have memories of life before modern Poland.
No Conservative politician dare say it publicly of course but one of the biggest outcomes from the tax credit changes is going to be very significant behavioural change, ie:
- much more incentive for low earner couples (where both work) with kids to stay together - low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
Of course they want to save money but I'm sure the above is a big part of the reason why they are doing this.
Absolutely agree with this.
And the vast majority of the public would agree to.
It's just a shame they don't feel able to be honest and say it - but I fully understand why not - as they would be accused of social engineering etc etc.
Yes, I'm sure the public would love the idea of battered spouses being trapped economically.
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
Kirchner's preferred successor, the centre-left Daniel Scioli, leads in exit polls tonight for the first round of Argentina's presidential election. It is unclear if he has run by a wide enough margin to avoid a run-off with his centre-right rival, Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-34634210
Argentina has recovered swiftly from their recession, so the governing party pulled a Cameron, it also helped that the argentinian right has no economic credibility since the 2001 collapse. Even if it goes on towards a second round there is a second left wing candidate that ran and got a juicy vote that the government nominee can safely use to coast to victory.
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
Does not show unfortunately however regardless of the population movement 50 years ago tonight's results show a clear East West divide
Yes, and there are real differences when travelling between the old Hapsburg, Czarist and Prussian derived areas of modern Poland. These changes may well be more to do with landscape and industry rather than with the origins of peoples 70 years ago. Few survivors from that period would have memories of life before modern Poland.
Interesting to speculate on the origins of the differences but differences there clearly are
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
You don't see there being long-term problems by introducing polices that encourage the fertility rate to be below the replacement rate? You don't see children growing up in poverty as creating long-term problems?
If anything, the country should be incentivising people to have more children!
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How much are they getting already? To use words such as "catastrophic" is utter nonsense, of course its not going to be easy, but lets be sensible... this isn't Greece.
Couple on £22,000 two kids will lose £2,400...do you think this people have savings to dip in to? Do you think they find it easy to pay their rent or their mortgage now...they will lose £200 per month. There was a study a while back detailing the effect of a possible interest rate rise next year...this is equivalent to a 2% rise in interest rates
Peoples behaviour will change and some may lose initially but all the package over the next five years will make most much better off. Any idea interest rates will rise by 2% next year is another smoke screen - any rises will be small and prolonged if at all
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
A map of postwar Polish population movements. A high proportion of the population of the "recovered territories" of Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia came from the East, and leapfrogged the people in central Poland.
Does not show unfortunately however regardless of the population movement 50 years ago tonight's results show a clear East West divide
Yes, and there are real differences when travelling between the old Hapsburg, Czarist and Prussian derived areas of modern Poland. These changes may well be more to do with landscape and industry rather than with the origins of peoples 70 years ago. Few survivors from that period would have memories of life before modern Poland.
The Prussian province of Posen was already 62% Polish in 1919, when it was ceded to Poland.
No Conservative politician dare say it publicly of course but one of the biggest outcomes from the tax credit changes is going to be very significant behavioural change, ie:
- much more incentive for low earner couples (where both work) with kids to stay together - low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
Of course they want to save money but I'm sure the above is a big part of the reason why they are doing this.
Absolutely agree with this.
And the vast majority of the public would agree to.
It's just a shame they don't feel able to be honest and say it - but I fully understand why not - as they would be accused of social engineering etc etc.
Yes, I'm sure the public would love the idea of battered spouses being trapped economically.
Indeed, family finances are often a subject and cause of conflict.
Though breaking the culture of welfare dependancy is part of the goal of the policy, this will take years. A degree of transitional relief for existing claimants seems wise.
A last note on the polish elections, based on the opinion polls the cameronian PO was coasting towards victory until they endorsed the Merkel immigration plan, that cost them 15 points on the opinion polls:
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How much are they getting already? To use words such as "catastrophic" is utter nonsense, of course its not going to be easy, but lets be sensible... this isn't Greece.
Couple on £22,000 two kids will lose £2,400...do you think this people have savings to dip in to? Do you think they find it easy to pay their rent or their mortgage now...they will lose £200 per month. There was a study a while back detailing the effect of a possible interest rate rise next year...this is equivalent to a 2% rise in interest rates
Peoples behaviour will change and some may lose initially but all the package over the next five years will make most much better off. Any idea interest rates will rise by 2% next year is another smoke screen - any rises will be small and prolonged if at all
Yes...that's the point. This £200 per month is coming NEXT April. You have no idea, do you?
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
Tell me something...why did Osborne not restrict Child Benefit to two children?
Though breaking the culture of welfare dependancy is part of the goal of the policy, this will take years.
The right cares more about "welfare dependency" than helping poor people, even if it means battered spouses are forced to stay with their their other halves because they can't afford to do anything else.
Says a lot about the warped, amoral mindset of those on the right.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How much are they getting already? To use words such as "catastrophic" is utter nonsense, of course its not going to be easy, but lets be sensible... this isn't Greece.
Couple on £22,000 two kids will lose £2,400...do you think this people have savings to dip in to? Do you think they find it easy to pay their rent or their mortgage now...they will lose £200 per month. There was a study a while back detailing the effect of a possible interest rate rise next year...this is equivalent to a 2% rise in interest rates
Peoples behaviour will change and some may lose initially but all the package over the next five years will make most much better off. Any idea interest rates will rise by 2% next year is another smoke screen - any rises will be small and prolonged if at all
Yes...that's the point. This £200 per month is coming NEXT April. You have no idea, do you?
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together. The IFS stated 3 million families would lose £1,300 in the first year not the figures you are quoting.
Tom Watson intervened in four separate sexual abuse cases in letters to successive directors of public prosecutions, the Daily Telegraph has learnt.
Four of his letters were about individual cases, none of which are understood to have involved constituents. In at least two of the cases the alleged perpetrators have since been formally cleared.
This newspaper has obtained a list showing the full extent Mr Watson's correspondence with Ms Saunders and Sir Keir, who is now a member of Labour's front bench. It includes letters written by Mr Watson about two cases where his involvement is disclosed for the first time today.
Kirchner's preferred successor, the centre-left Daniel Scioli, leads in exit polls tonight for the first round of Argentina's presidential election. It is unclear if he has run by a wide enough margin to avoid a run-off with his centre-right rival, Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-34634210
Argentina has recovered swiftly from their recession, so the governing party pulled a Cameron, it also helped that the argentinian right has no economic credibility since the 2001 collapse. Even if it goes on towards a second round there is a second left wing candidate that ran and got a juicy vote that the government nominee can safely use to coast to victory.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How much are they getting already? To use words such as "catastrophic" is utter nonsense, of course its not going to be easy, but lets be sensible... this isn't Greece.
Couple on £22,000 two kids will lose £2,400...do you think this people have savings to dip in to? Do you think they find it easy to pay their rent or their mortgage now...they will lose £200 per month. There was a study a while back detailing the effect of a possible interest rate rise next year...this is equivalent to a 2% rise in interest rates
Peoples behaviour will change and some may lose initially but all the package over the next five years will make most much better off. Any idea interest rates will rise by 2% next year is another smoke screen - any rises will be small and prolonged if at all
Yes...that's the point. This £200 per month is coming NEXT April. You have no idea, do you?
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together. The IFS stated 3 million families would lose £1,300 in the first year not the figures you are quoting.
Google a tax credit calculator and check. The IFS figure is an AVERAGE, by definition some will be less ans some will be more...some will be £2,400
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
You don't see there being long-term problems by introducing polices that encourage the fertility rate to be below the replacement rate? You don't see children growing up in poverty as creating long-term problems?
If anything, the country should be incentivising people to have more children!
Our fertility rate is actually relatively good for developed nations, nations like Japan and Germany and Italy have more problems than we do. We already have population pressures as it is in terms of housing etc People having more children than they can afford would create long-term problems, yes
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
Assuming that's true, your evidence in support of "a significant number of these are going to be £5,000 to £10,000 worse off" is that some families are going to be £1,300 worse off. How convincing...
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
Tell me something...why did Osborne not restrict Child Benefit to two children?
He cut child benefit for those earning more than £50,000 a year in 2014
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
You don't see there being long-term problems by introducing polices that encourage the fertility rate to be below the replacement rate? You don't see children growing up in poverty as creating long-term problems?
If anything, the country should be incentivising people to have more children!
Our fertility rate is actually relatively good for developed nations, nations like Japan and Germany and Italy have more problems than we do. We already have population pressures as it is in terms of housing etc
The UK's fertility rate is 1.9, below the replacement rate, and they are introducing policies to reduce it further. I imagine it would be far lower without immigration, which governments are proposing to cut, especially unskilled immigration.
People having more children than they can afford would create long-term problems, yes
Well, no, it's not a long-term problem, as those children go into work and pay taxes. An aging population is a long-term problem as those people expect to get a pension once retired and need more healthcare. The tax revenue needs to come from somewhere.
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
Like so many on here and like nearly every Tory MP who voted to cut tax credits he doesn't know what impact it will have because he's never been in that situation.
As I said before if it was about reducing individual's reliance on benefits then Osborne would have restricted Child Benefit to two children. But that would have impacted on "welfare dependency" of those on family incomes of £50,000...and they vote Tory
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Kirchner's preferred successor, the centre-left Daniel Scioli, leads in exit polls tonight for the first round of Argentina's presidential election. It is unclear if he has run by a wide enough margin to avoid a run-off with his centre-right rival, Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-34634210
Argentina has recovered swiftly from their recession, so the governing party pulled a Cameron, it also helped that the argentinian right has no economic credibility since the 2001 collapse. Even if it goes on towards a second round there is a second left wing candidate that ran and got a juicy vote that the government nominee can safely use to coast to victory.
Yes looks like Peronism continues
When the alternative are the people of Carlos Menem, I think Peronism is quite fine for Argentina.
Nobody is being patronising. You sensitively bemoaned the fact that OGH was setting a theme in the header, that "The underlying theme of the header is only thickos vote ukip". You said that, not me.
You're wrong, he never once used the word thickos. I never once used the word thickos. You read non-graduate as thickos. You did that, not OGH, not me, not "Conservatives" in general. You and you alone.
So if you're being patronised then take a good long look in the mirror to see who is doing it.
I'm not being patronised.
You're a very angry young man Mr Thompson, prone to personal abuse, that will hold you back in every aspect of your life.
Though you are being condescending I'm neither angry nor patronising. It is neither my fault nor OGH's fault that you see offence where none was made.
Your complaints are just another form of political correctness. We can't address how graduates do or do not vote because it may offend "thickos" by your insinuation? That is absurd.
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
Tell me something...why did Osborne not restrict Child Benefit to two children?
He cut child benefit for those earning more than £50,000 a year in 2014
Yes he did...but not for couples was it?. A working couple each earning £40,000 still get full child benefit...why did he not restrict child benefit to two children?
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
Can I ask why you put free market in quotation marks? Do you deny the free market exists in today's world?
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
Like so many on here and like nearly every Tory MP who voted to cut tax credits he doesn't know what impact it will have because he's never been in that situation.
As I said before if it was about reducing individual's reliance on benefits then Osborne would have restricted Child Benefit to two children. But that would have impacted on "welfare dependency" of those on family incomes of £50,000...and they vote Tory
Just because you aren't in the same situation doesn't mean that they don't know what the implications are.
And hasn't child benefit been limited as you describe?
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Ha ha...my God...you actually believe what you wrote, don't you?
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
Though much of this area was subject to murder, deportation and Germanisation of racially suitable peoples, as well as murder of Jews and Polish intellectuals. Those 1919 population figures were rather obsolete by 1945.
Many British Poles are also descended from Eastern Poland, as these areas were subject to deportations to Siberia and Kazakstan in 1939-41. These Poles then travelled via Iran and East Africa to form the main body of the Polish Army and Air Force, many of whom settled post war in Leicestershire.
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
Like so many on here and like nearly every Tory MP who voted to cut tax credits he doesn't know what impact it will have because he's never been in that situation.
As I said before if it was about reducing individual's reliance on benefits then Osborne would have restricted Child Benefit to two children. But that would have impacted on "welfare dependency" of those on family incomes of £50,000...and they vote Tory
Just because you aren't in the same situation doesn't mean that they don't know what the implications are.
And hasn't child benefit been limited as you describe?
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Ha ha...my God...you actually believe what you wrote, don't you?
You've certainly blown his argument out of the water with that comment.
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
You don't see there being long-term problems by introducing polices that encourage the fertility rate to be below the replacement rate? You don't see children growing up in poverty as creating long-term problems?
If anything, the country should be incentivising people to have more children!
Our fertility rate is actually relatively good for developed nations, nations like Japan and Germany and Italy have more problems than we do. We already have population pressures as it is in terms of housing etc
The UK's fertility rate is 1.9, below the replacement rate, and they are introducing policies to reduce it further. I imagine it would be far lower without immigration, which governments are proposing to cut, especially unskilled immigration.
People having more children than they can afford would create long-term problems, yes
Well, no, it's not a long-term problem, as those children go into work and pay taxes. An aging population is a long-term problem as those people expect to get a pension once retired and need more healthcare. The tax revenue needs to come from somewhere.
Those children need to be paid for first when they are raised and pensions and healthcare need to be funded more by insurance longer term than taxation
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
Tell me something...why did Osborne not restrict Child Benefit to two children?
He cut child benefit for those earning more than £50,000 a year in 2014
Yes he did...but not for couples was it?. A working couple each earning £40,000 still get full child benefit...why did he not restrict child benefit to two children?
He has cut tax credits to two children, I have no problem restricting child benefit to two children but I am not Chancellor
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
Like so many on here and like nearly every Tory MP who voted to cut tax credits he doesn't know what impact it will have because he's never been in that situation.
As I said before if it was about reducing individual's reliance on benefits then Osborne would have restricted Child Benefit to two children. But that would have impacted on "welfare dependency" of those on family incomes of £50,000...and they vote Tory
Just because you aren't in the same situation doesn't mean that they don't know what the implications are.
And hasn't child benefit been limited as you describe?
Tell me Rod...why do you think Osborne did not restrict child benefit to two children?
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
Tell me something...why did Osborne not restrict Child Benefit to two children?
He cut child benefit for those earning more than £50,000 a year in 2014
Yes he did...but not for couples was it?. A working couple each earning £40,000 still get full child benefit...why did he not restrict child benefit to two children?
He has cut tax credits to two children, I have no problem restricting child benefit to two children but I am not Chancellor
Why do you think he didn't do that...I reckon it's because it would upset a lot of Tory voters. Now tell me again...how important is reducing the deficit?
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
Though much of this area was subject to murder, deportation and Germanisation of racially suitable peoples, as well as murder of Jews and Polish intellectuals. Those 1919 population figures were rather obsolete by 1945.
Many British Poles are also descended from Eastern Poland, as these areas were subject to deportations to Siberia and Kazakstan in 1939-41. These Poles then travelled via Iran and East Africa to form the main body of the Polish Army and Air Force, many of whom settled post war in Leicestershire.
And in the american civil war the population of the confederacy dropped from 9.1 million at the beginning to 3 million by the end, yet almost all former confederate states more than 150 years later still vote for conservative parties.
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
Like so many on here and like nearly every Tory MP who voted to cut tax credits he doesn't know what impact it will have because he's never been in that situation.
As I said before if it was about reducing individual's reliance on benefits then Osborne would have restricted Child Benefit to two children. But that would have impacted on "welfare dependency" of those on family incomes of £50,000...and they vote Tory
Just because you aren't in the same situation doesn't mean that they don't know what the implications are.
And hasn't child benefit been limited as you describe?
Tell me Rod...why do you think Osborne did not restrict child benefit to two children?
Clearly you can't read (my name is Rob). He has restricted child benefit to two children, albeit effective 2017
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
Though much of this area was subject to murder, deportation and Germanisation of racially suitable peoples, as well as murder of Jews and Polish intellectuals. Those 1919 population figures were rather obsolete by 1945.
Many British Poles are also descended from Eastern Poland, as these areas were subject to deportations to Siberia and Kazakstan in 1939-41. These Poles then travelled via Iran and East Africa to form the main body of the Polish Army and Air Force, many of whom settled post war in Leicestershire.
My point is that the majority population were Polish in and around Poznan long before 1945. So superimposing the 1919 boundary of Germany onto tonight's election result may not be valid
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Ha ha...my God...you actually believe what you wrote, don't you?
No point in entering any further discussion - why do the left constantly insult those that have another view
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Ha ha...my God...you actually believe what you wrote, don't you?
No point in entering any further discussion - why do the left constantly insult those that have another view
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
Like so many on here and like nearly every Tory MP who voted to cut tax credits he doesn't know what impact it will have because he's never been in that situation.
As I said before if it was about reducing individual's reliance on benefits then Osborne would have restricted Child Benefit to two children. But that would have impacted on "welfare dependency" of those on family incomes of £50,000...and they vote Tory
Just because you aren't in the same situation doesn't mean that they don't know what the implications are.
And hasn't child benefit been limited as you describe?
Tell me Rod...why do you think Osborne did not restrict child benefit to two children?
Clearly you can't read (my name is Rob). He has restricted child benefit to two children, albeit effective 2017
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
Like so many on here and like nearly every Tory MP who voted to cut tax credits he doesn't know what impact it will have because he's never been in that situation.
As I said before if it was about reducing individual's reliance on benefits then Osborne would have restricted Child Benefit to two children. But that would have impacted on "welfare dependency" of those on family incomes of £50,000...and they vote Tory
Just because you aren't in the same situation doesn't mean that they don't know what the implications are.
And hasn't child benefit been limited as you describe?
Tell me Rod...why do you think Osborne did not restrict child benefit to two children?
Clearly you can't read (my name is Rob). He has restricted child benefit to two children, albeit effective 2017
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Ha ha...my God...you actually believe what you wrote, don't you?
No point in entering any further discussion - why do the left constantly insult those that have another view
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty.
It's a targeted subsidy to certain demographics. In practice, minimum wage and tax credits do the same damn thing. Besides, we used to be able to claw back subsidies via corporation tax before "free markets" and Conservatives cuts destroyed that revenue source. Indeed, it's worth remembering that tax credits were based on negative income taxes, a long-held right-wing policy to lift the poor out of poverty!
Universal wage increases will be eaten up by increasing costs of living. Universal wage increases are useless in a vacuum.
"Child care" subsidies are self-evidently horrible and are a far worse way of doing what tax credits do.
High minimum wages overwhelmingly hurt small businesses, who don't have capital, and benefit large corporations who can invest in technology to reduce manpower.
And there is nothing inherently wrong with state aid unless you're ideologically opposed to the principle.
why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
In general, the right claim to be compassionate while refuses to do anything about it. I find it deeply cynical.
And it also partially comes down my upbringing - my parents were hardline right-wingers. They worked all hours, badly neglected me (asserting "personal responsibility", boldly extending that principle to young children) and we lived in squalor while they endlessly gambled, drank and chainsmoked. This inevitably gives me a very, very cynical view of the right as the contradictions of their world view slowly added up, even growing up in a household that passionately hated the left. I've consequently steadily became more and more left-wing as I've become older.
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
And in the american civil war the population of the confederacy dropped from 9.1 million at the beginning to 3 million by the end, yet almost all former confederate states more than 150 years later still vote for conservative parties.
That's a recent phenomenon. The South was solidly Democrat: so much so that they had 'yellow dog' democrats, the line being that voters would vote for a little yellow dog if it was a Democrat.
What changed it was the passage of the Civil Rights Act. LBJ said on signing it that it would cost his party the South for a generation. Its turned out to be longer than that.
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Ha ha...my God...you actually believe what you wrote, don't you?
No point in entering any further discussion - why do the left constantly insult those that have another view
Shut it, Tory Scum!
Point made
(was just joking around, incase that didn't come across correctly!)
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
Tell me something...why did Osborne not restrict Child Benefit to two children?
He cut child benefit for those earning more than £50,000 a year in 2014
Yes he did...but not for couples was it?. A working couple each earning £40,000 still get full child benefit...why did he not restrict child benefit to two children?
He has cut tax credits to two children, I have no problem restricting child benefit to two children but I am not Chancellor
Why do you think he didn't do that...I reckon it's because it would upset a lot of Tory voters. Now tell me again...how important is reducing the deficit?
He cut it for higher earning voters though who tend to be Tories
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
Like so many on here and like nearly every Tory MP who voted to cut tax credits he doesn't know what impact it will have because he's never been in that situation.
As I said before if it was about reducing individual's reliance on benefits then Osborne would have restricted Child Benefit to two children. But that would have impacted on "welfare dependency" of those on family incomes of £50,000...and they vote Tory
Just because you aren't in the same situation doesn't mean that they don't know what the implications are.
And hasn't child benefit been limited as you describe?
Tell me Rod...why do you think Osborne did not restrict child benefit to two children?
He has restricted child benefit to two children, albeit effective 2017
Read the article carefully - he has restricted Child Tax Credits to 2 children from April 2017. Not Child Benefit.
I wish he had but he hasn't.
Reasons he didn't:
1) Cameron's pledge re Child Benefit
2) (Much more importantly) - Child Benefit is Mickey Mouse - it's £1,000 for the first child and £700 for each subsequent one. In comparison the AVERAGE Tax Credit claim is over £6,000 - and many get far, far more.
You can't make serious money out of Child Benefit. You can out of Tax Credits.
My point re couples breaking up also doesn't apply to Child Benefit - it makes no difference what household income is - unless someone earns over £50k - but even then it makes no difference if the couple splits up.
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
Like so many on here and like nearly every Tory MP who voted to cut tax credits he doesn't know what impact it will have because he's never been in that situation.
As I said before if it was about reducing individual's reliance on benefits then Osborne would have restricted Child Benefit to two children. But that would have impacted on "welfare dependency" of those on family incomes of £50,000...and they vote Tory
Just because you aren't in the same situation doesn't mean that they don't know what the implications are.
And hasn't child benefit been limited as you describe?
Tell me Rod...why do you think Osborne did not restrict child benefit to two children?
He has restricted child benefit to two children, albeit effective 2017
Read the article carefully - he has restricted Child Tax Credits to 2 children from April 2017. Not Child Benefit.
I wish he had but he hasn't.
Reasons he didn't:
1) Cameron's pledge re Child Benefit
2) (Much more importantly) - Child Benefit is Mickey Mouse - it's £1,000 for the first child and £700 for each subsequent one. In comparison the AVERAGE Tax Credit claim is over £6,000 - and many get far, far more.
You can't make serious money out of Child Benefit. You can out of Tax Credits.
My point re couples breaking up also doesn't apply to Child Benefit - it makes no difference what household income is - unless someone earns over £50k - but even then it makes no difference if the couple splits up.
Ah, I hadn't appreciated the fact that they were two different things! Thanks.
Sounds like he has made the bigger of the two cuts though.
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Ha ha...my God...you actually believe what you wrote, don't you?
No point in entering any further discussion - why do the left constantly insult those that have another view
Shut it, Tory Scum!
Point made
(was just joking around, incase that didn't come across correctly!)
Yes I realised that after I had posted. Still learning the nuances of PB
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Ha ha...my God...you actually believe what you wrote, don't you?
No point in entering any further discussion - why do the left constantly insult those that have another view
Shut it, Tory Scum!
Point made
(was just joking around, incase that didn't come across correctly!)
Yes I realised that after I had posted. Still learning the nuances of PB
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Ha ha...my God...you actually believe what you wrote, don't you?
No point in entering any further discussion - why do the left constantly insult those that have another view
Shut it, Tory Scum!
Point made
(was just joking around, incase that didn't come across correctly!)
Yes I realised that after I had posted. Still learning the nuances of PB
You are out of order - I am well aware of the implications but tax credits have to be reduced and eventually withdrawn all together..
Let's be clear: they don't "have to be", you want them to be, because you ideologically believe that the principle of "welfare dependency" matters more than people living in poverty.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
The root of this problem is that it subsidises employers to pay low wages. Higher wages together with increasing tax allowances and child care will move people away from state aid and will release much needed money into the NHS and at the same time lift more people and children out of poverty. why is it that the left think they are the only ones with compassion - they are not
Ha ha...my God...you actually believe what you wrote, don't you?
No point in entering any further discussion - why do the left constantly insult those that have another view
Shut it, Tory Scum!
Point made
(was just joking around, incase that didn't come across correctly!)
Yes I realised that after I had posted. Still learning the nuances of PB
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
However as the results tonight prove their influence and links to western Europe in West Poland contrast with the clearly Eastern European and more Russian style values of the East
Though much of this area was subject to murder, deportation and Germanisation of racially suitable peoples, as well as murder of Jews and Polish intellectuals. Those 1919 population figures were rather obsolete
And in the american civil war the population of the confederacy dropped from 9.1 million at the beginning to 3 million by the end, yet almost all former confederate states more than 150 years later still vote for conservative parties.
Not sure where those figures come from. Recent figures suggest both sides in the Civil War together lost 750 000 men in Combat and service, the figure for civilians is less clear but could not stretch to your figure of six million. And until the 1980's the South was pretty solidly Democrat. The 3 Southern postwar Presidents (LBJ, Carter and Clinton) could not be fairly described as Conservatives either.
In general, the right claim to be compassionate while refuses to do anything about it. I find it deeply cynical.
And it also partially comes down my upbringing - my parents were hardline right-wingers. They worked all hours, badly neglected me (asserting "personal responsibility", boldly extending that principle to young children) and we lived in squalor while they endlessly gambled, drank and chainsmoked. This inevitably gives me a very, very cynical view of the right as the contradictions of their world view slowly added up, even growing up in a household that passionately hated the left. I've consequently steadily became more and more left-wing as I've become older.
Proper hardline right wing parents would have sent you up chimneys or down the coal mines when you turned 8 and earn a wage.
You had it easy, sunshine. We lived in a shoebox in the middle of the road until Thatcher sold it off.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
And in the american civil war the population of the confederacy dropped from 9.1 million at the beginning to 3 million by the end, yet almost all former confederate states more than 150 years later still vote for conservative parties.
Not sure where those figures come from. Recent figures suggest both sides in the Civil War together lost 750 000 men in Combat and service, the figure for civilians is less clear but could not stretch to your figure of six million. And until the 1980's the South was pretty solidly Democrat. The 3 Southern postwar Presidents (LBJ, Carter and Clinton) could not be fairly described as Conservatives either.
And the Democratic party was mostly a conservative party on economic issues until 1896 and conservative on social issues until 1960 or 1980 (since Carter was the last social conservative democrat President), as the Democrats became more left wing on social issues the Republicans became more right wing and now they dominate the former confederacy instead of the Democrats.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How many hours left to save them?
TWO MONTHS to save Christmas!!!
How many hours left to save the Galactic Senate??
"Ed Leader, this is Gold Leader. We're starting for the target shaft now!"
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How many hours left to save them?
TWO MONTHS to save Christmas!!!
How many hours left to save the Galactic Senate??
"Ed Leader, this is Gold Leader. We're starting for the target shaft now!"
Poor Shaft. He's got no idea what's coming to him.
And in the american civil war the population of the confederacy dropped from 9.1 million at the beginning to 3 million by the end, yet almost all former confederate states more than 150 years later still vote for conservative parties.
Not sure where those figures come from. Recent figures suggest both sides in the Civil War together lost 750 000 men in Combat and service, the figure for civilians is less clear but could not stretch to your figure of six million. And until the 1980's the South was pretty solidly Democrat. The 3 Southern postwar Presidents (LBJ, Carter and Clinton) could not be fairly described as Conservatives either.
And the Democratic party was mostly a conservative party on economic issues until 1896 and conservative on social issues until 1960 or 1980 (since Carter was the last social conservative democrat President), as the Democrats became more left wing on social issues the Republicans became more right wing and now they dominate the former confederacy instead of the Democrats.
Goodnight.
The population figure for the CSA was so low because that was the de facto figure for that territory controlled by the Confederates in 1864.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How many hours left to save them?
TWO MONTHS to save Christmas!!!
How many hours left to save the Galactic Senate??
Don't they measure time in parsecs?
I like the idea that it was a shortcut in a region full of anomalies
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How many hours left to save them?
TWO MONTHS to save Christmas!!!
How many hours left to save the Galactic Senate??
"Ed Leader, this is Gold Leader. We're starting for the target shaft now!"
Poor Shaft. He's got no idea what's coming to him.
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
I think that's very presumptive based on people's behaviour being far more closely aligned to pretty marginal economics incentives than it is in the real world. I think a more likely outcome is more children living in poverty. In fact, it might even encourage larger families, as it does in the 3rd world.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Most people have to stop having children after 2 if you want more earn more to fund them, don't rely on benefits to support them
Tell me something...why did Osborne not restrict Child Benefit to two children?
He cut child benefit for those earning more than £50,000 a year in 2014
Yes he did...but not for couples was it?. A working couple each earning £40,000 still get full child benefit...why did he not restrict child benefit to two children?
He has cut tax credits to two children, I have no problem restricting child benefit to two children but I am not Chancellor
Why do you think he didn't do that...I reckon it's because it would upset a lot of Tory voters. Now tell me again...how important is reducing the deficit?
Oops - Its already been eliminated for high income earners.
Child Benefit unlike Child Tax Credits is not means tested. Meaning that getting it doesn't put you on a vicious 80% marginal tax rate and a cap on aspiration like you so adore.
The Tories will concentrate on the lower and middle paid for the rest of this Parliament and at the same time move onto the socially acceptable centre ground vacated by Corbyn's labour party
I doubt it - they are hammering the lower and middle paid. A signicant number of these are going to be £5000 to £10,000 worse off by 2020 - who the hell is going to vote Tory after that?
How many and what independent evidence do you have for this claim
My consituency 3,900 families will lose a total of £5 million...8,000 children will be growing up in poorer households...the knock on effects are going to be catastrophic
How many hours left to save them?
TWO MONTHS to save Christmas!!!
How many hours left to save the Galactic Senate??
"Ed Leader, this is Gold Leader. We're starting for the target shaft now!"
Poor Shaft. He's got no idea what's coming to him.
When the original Richard Roundtree movie came out, in the early 70s I saw it in Spain, with Spanish subtitles.
The place erupted with laughter when the subtitles in Spanish said "Kiss my black donkey."
Comments
But I assume you already know that and are being disingenuous.
But I assume you already know that and are being disingenuous.
Tax credits just subsidise low wages. In terms of pensions and healthcare ultimately we need to encourage those who can afford it to take out insurance as most other western nations do, spending ever more on an ageing population is not viable
A map of postwar Polish population movements. A high proportion of the population of the "recovered territories" of Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia came from the East, and leapfrogged the people in central Poland.
Highest earning 10%? Perhaps, depending on how you measure it (e.g. how do you quantify the changes to unemployment benefit which make sanctions more likely), and, of course, that will excludes the incoming tax credit cuts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Polish_Republic
In some cases the divide is new like in Germany which still shows large differences in east and west Germany along the 1949 border, or it could be centuries old like Tuscany vs the Kingdom of Naples showing up on Italian electoral maps even if Italy was unified in 1860.
Not to mention the USA with the conservative confederacy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-34634210
- much more incentive for low earner couples (where both work) with kids to stay together
- low earners much less likely to have 3rd and subsequent kids (post April 2017)
Of course they want to save money but I'm sure the above is a big part of the reason why they are doing this.
http://parlament2015.pkw.gov.pl/
It's just a shame they don't feel able to be honest and say it - but I fully understand why not - as they would be accused of social engineering etc etc.
Not that people having even fewer children is desirable given the aging population. Fewer unskilled immigrants and poor children? Can't wait to see the next generation's upper-middle-class kids having to do menial jobs.
Even if it goes on towards a second round there is a second left wing candidate that ran and got a juicy vote that the government nominee can safely use to coast to victory.
If anything, the country should be incentivising people to have more children!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Posen
Though breaking the culture of welfare dependancy is part of the goal of the policy, this will take years. A degree of transitional relief for existing claimants seems wise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliamentary_election,_2015#/media/File:Model_sondaży.png
Says a lot about the warped, amoral mindset of those on the right.
I'm interested what policies you would introduce to help the poor, especially poor children, and reduce the inevitable inequality caused by "free market" policies. Or do you just deny there's a problem?
As I said before if it was about reducing individual's reliance on benefits then Osborne would have restricted Child Benefit to two children. But that would have impacted on "welfare dependency" of those on family incomes of £50,000...and they vote Tory
Your complaints are just another form of political correctness. We can't address how graduates do or do not vote because it may offend "thickos" by your insinuation? That is absurd.
And hasn't child benefit been limited as you describe?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanization
Many British Poles are also descended from Eastern Poland, as these areas were subject to deportations to Siberia and Kazakstan in 1939-41. These Poles then travelled via Iran and East Africa to form the main body of the Polish Army and Air Force, many of whom settled post war in Leicestershire.
*WARNING: This comment may contain sarcasm*
The UK's population is forecast to be 77 million by 2050, the largest in Europe and we are already one of the most congested nations on earth.
http://www.cityam.com/221125/population-growth-uk-become-biggest-country-european-union-2050
Those children need to be paid for first when they are raised and pensions and healthcare need to be funded more by insurance longer term than taxation
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/budget-2015-child-tax-credits-6026481
Universal wage increases will be eaten up by increasing costs of living. Universal wage increases are useless in a vacuum.
"Child care" subsidies are self-evidently horrible and are a far worse way of doing what tax credits do.
High minimum wages overwhelmingly hurt small businesses, who don't have capital, and benefit large corporations who can invest in technology to reduce manpower.
And there is nothing inherently wrong with state aid unless you're ideologically opposed to the principle. In general, the right claim to be compassionate while refuses to do anything about it. I find it deeply cynical.
And it also partially comes down my upbringing - my parents were hardline right-wingers. They worked all hours, badly neglected me (asserting "personal responsibility", boldly extending that principle to young children) and we lived in squalor while they endlessly gambled, drank and chainsmoked. This inevitably gives me a very, very cynical view of the right as the contradictions of their world view slowly added up, even growing up in a household that passionately hated the left. I've consequently steadily became more and more left-wing as I've become older.
What changed it was the passage of the Civil Rights Act. LBJ said on signing it that it would cost his party the South for a generation. Its turned out to be longer than that.
Read the article carefully - he has restricted Child Tax Credits to 2 children from April 2017. Not Child Benefit.
I wish he had but he hasn't.
Reasons he didn't:
1) Cameron's pledge re Child Benefit
2) (Much more importantly) - Child Benefit is Mickey Mouse - it's £1,000 for the first child and £700 for each subsequent one. In comparison the AVERAGE Tax Credit claim is over £6,000 - and many get far, far more.
You can't make serious money out of Child Benefit. You can out of Tax Credits.
My point re couples breaking up also doesn't apply to Child Benefit - it makes no difference what household income is - unless someone earns over £50k - but even then it makes no difference if the couple splits up.
Sounds like he has made the bigger of the two cuts though.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html?referer=
You had it easy, sunshine. We lived in a shoebox in the middle of the road until Thatcher sold it off.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/phall/HSUS.pdf
And the Democratic party was mostly a conservative party on economic issues until 1896 and conservative on social issues until 1960 or 1980 (since Carter was the last social conservative democrat President), as the Democrats became more left wing on social issues the Republicans became more right wing and now they dominate the former confederacy instead of the Democrats.
Goodnight.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KateHoeyMP/status/658421428056891393
Love all these confused tweets from people who can't understand why the mainstream media isn't covering it.
Child Benefit unlike Child Tax Credits is not means tested. Meaning that getting it doesn't put you on a vicious 80% marginal tax rate and a cap on aspiration like you so adore.
The place erupted with laughter when the subtitles in Spanish said "Kiss my black donkey."