DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

lol http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11461823

Yes, that's the part that always makes me mad. It costs about £20K a year in order for a single person to live here in a way that's not hand-to-mouth (FYI that's a wage of £400/week or £10/hr and you'll be paying a minimum of £400/month for rent in London, plus myriad monthly bills).

Oh it's so immature of me but whenever Warsi speaks I want to offer the following as translation service: 'ner ner ner, ner ner ner, blah blah'.

Yes, that's the part that always makes me mad. It costs about £20K a year in order for a single person to live here in a way that's not hand-to-mouth

This seems really untrue to me, but maybe we have different definitions of hand-to-mouth.

I define it as spending 25 per cent of income on rent instead of over half while having the opportunity to save a bit and not suffer with 'too much month at the end of the money' syndrome. Also, £5k of the £20k comes out in tax before the cash even lands in the bank, so you're really on a budget of £15k and over half of that is going to be non-food bills and council tax. On the c. £7/hr advocates of the living wage are promoting, that adds up to an income of £14,560/year - not really enough to live here, is it?

there are lots of facets to this, including pension provision -- pretty hard to pay into a pension scheme on less than £20k, and it seems pretty unlikely the state pension will mean a thing in a generation's time -- and the banking sector controlled racket that is the housing 'market': state benefits flow not very indirectly towards the landlords (and, so, the banks) as things stand. it's not so much a question of numbers but about the structure of the economy.

^^^ Bingo, that's why everyone's been encouraged to paper over the cracks with consumer credit for a generation and oh shit what do you mean it went tits-up?

perhaps being a bit London-centric. you can surive perfectly well on less than 20k in Glasgow for instance. I technically earn under 20k, my basic is 17, but with overtime i can, and do, make a before tax maybe around 24. some months i don't bother to do OT and i get by fine, having money at the end of the month, despite the fact that i'm profligate with money and drink rather a lot. my rent, in the city centre, is 350, around a third of my basic take home, and i make a pension contribution as well.

xps - bloody Warsi (wARSEY more like amirite?) - I think she got off lightly there tbh.
"concerns raised by associations" - this is such bullshit.

warsi has made a fool of herself -- there almost certainly was voter fraud in tower hamlets; it was being reported even before the election, but it's stupid to make these accusations and not go all-in

£15k and over half of that is going to be non-food bills and council tax

That's 'non-food bills and council tax' of over £625 a month - surely no-one pays that much?

HM's point about pensions is a good one I think.

Precisely, she looks an idiot for not substantiating the claim. Warsi always strikes me as an asian from a privileged background who gets all annoyed cos the asian community won't just do what they're told and vote tory.

That's 'non-food bills and council tax' of over £625 a month - surely no-one pays that much?

she's including rent in non-food bills so, yes, they do pay that!

Oh the Warsi speech right now is unbearable. Apparently Mandelson is some kind of incompetent cunt and Eric Pickles is an amazing genius.

Oh right! Sorry, I misread that :(

Add it up: rent, council tax, TV license, utility bills including phone and internet connection, transportation for your commute?

My rent in London is about £400/month (but it's a small flat), council tax is £80, heat and hot water is £45, electricity is £20, phone £35, internet/landline £30, TV £12 and transport would be £100 if I was commuting but it's more like £50 because I live in zone 1.

Warsi isn't from poshness, but her dad did well - she strikes me as being Thatcherbaby lower middle class in outlook, even though she can pay for stuff.

I'm actually mostly wrong here! I guess that was predictable.

Yes, and I wasn't even figuring in the debts the average graduate is paying off! If someone's on JSA, using my costs, they'd have £480 covered by the state (rent and council tax) plus c. £280/month - £132 of which is fixed cost of bills that must be paid on time, leaving £148/month for food, necessary toiletries, transport to interviews and the like - that's £34.15/week, a superb foundation on which to build a return to work!

this is interesting

The prime minister's media adviser, Andy Coulson, personally listened to the intercepted voicemail messages of public figures when he edited the News of the World, a senior journalist who worked alongside him has said.

Coulson has always denied knowing about any illegal activity by the journalists who worked for him, but an unidentified former editor from the paper told Channel Four Dispatches that Coulson not only knew his reporters were using intercepted voicemail but was also personally involved.

I bet the Tories thought this problem had been dodged. HA.

Coulson's very disposable, think this is mostly small potatoes.

ehh, it'd be a pretty good scalp imo

All for scalpings, just don't think it'll do a lot of damage.

Under the new plans, "if you can work and if you're offered a job and you don't take it, you cannot continue to claim benefits. It will be extremely tough," he said.

it will be extremely tough and you may have to just die instead

― FORTIFIED STEAMED VEGETABLE BOWL (schlump), Sunday, 3 October 2010 11:12 (5 hours ago) Permalink

Those new plans sound a lot like the old plans.

― James Mitchell, Sunday, 3 October 2010 11:22 (5 hours ago)

As someone who actually works for the organisation that pays benefits, these plans sound exactly like the rules that have been in place for at least the last 10 years...

not going to be a massive deal if he goes. i don't think he's really associated with the govt by johnny voter to the same extent as say, campbell was.

lols though

"High earners":

Families earning over about £44,000 would be affected.

That's not actually what the article says, unless it changed since you put that. It's individuals earning over £44,000. A family with a combined income of over £44,000 wouldn't be affected unless one person earned over £44,000.

Yeah, for once I have no problem with this policy - higher rate tax payers don't need child benefit.

there was a thing about exactly this is the nyt last week: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/business/global/01welfare.html

Damn BBC, getting me all righteous and angry.

not going to be a massive deal if he goes. i don't think he's really associated with the govt by johnny voter to the same extent as say, campbell was.

If Campbell had gone five or six months into Blair's reign no one would have noticed him at all.

So, just to be clear, if a family has two earners earning £40k they don't lose their benefit but a family with one earner on £44k does?

I think that's right, it's higher rate taxpayers that are seeing it stopped, it's a way for them to get round the hurdle of means testing for families, because they can say it isn't means testing.

In isolation I'm not bothered about this policy, as far as cuts go, payments to high earners are about as painless as they get. There's a thin end of the wedge element to it though - at what point to do stop restricting benefits for high earners in future? Will they have to pay more for NHS care in the future? I'm know I'm speculating about things that haven't happened yet but it's not that big a logical leap.

There's a thin end of the wedge element to it though - at what point to do stop restricting benefits for high earners in future? Will they have to pay more for NHS care in the future?

yeah there is an aspect of this, but given that *any government currently in power would be making cuts*, this one seems pretty easily defensible.

Yeah it's a nice, uncontroversial "we're all in this together" policy to push off the conference with.

Hmmm. We're going to lose £1584 a year because Mrs. Trifle earns just over the higher tax limit (I earn virtually nothing) but our neighbours (combined income of £70k) lose nothing? I can't help but feel slightly miffed. I'm not saying we need the money but I think we need it more than they do. Lovely people though (resentment growing...most resist...urge to let the tires of their Jag down...).

tug that forelock

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/boris-johnson-cbi-strike-ballots

On yer bike, Johnson. Or join a union if you want a say in union policy matters.

What about elected mayors who win power on just 19% of the vote?

I suspect this will be pointed out to BJ. Will be pleased when the dust of history settles and the word association result called up by 'Boris Johnson' and 'bike' will once again be 'Antonella Wyatt'.

twitter hating on some guy called bob crowe

It drives me nuts that when I first moved here, there was no Thatcherbaby whining about strikes (the whining at the time came from your actual Thatcher) and the average person wouldn't have dreamed of crossing a picket.

tbf what exactly is a thatcherbaby anyway?

One that loves Thatcher like she was their mummy.

I hate the term 'Thatcherbaby', it's pretty counterproductive in terms of actually trying to engage people with any point you're trying to make. It doesn't help that the RMT is beyond woeful at communicating with anyone other than its workers. I'm willing to bet most people don't even know what the strike is about, just that there is one and it's getting in their way.

i have never heard anyone use "thatcherbaby" except suzy.

If Campbell had gone five or six months into Blair's reign no one would have noticed him at all.

yeah, the smart guy with a grudge waits until just before the next election to go on the record on this story imo.

i have never heard anyone use "thatcherbaby" except suzy.

I thought Marcello coined but either way, not a great way to go about winning an argument.