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

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (7011 of them)

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.

Matt DC, Monday, 4 October 2010 08:43 (thirteen years ago) link

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?

Duncan Donuts (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 4 October 2010 08:46 (thirteen years ago) link

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.

Matt DC, Monday, 4 October 2010 08:51 (thirteen years ago) link

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.

laughing out loud lol (history mayne), Monday, 4 October 2010 09:01 (thirteen years ago) link

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

Matt DC, Monday, 4 October 2010 09:03 (thirteen years ago) link

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...).

Duncan Donuts (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 4 October 2010 09:09 (thirteen years ago) link

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

are you robot? (suzy), Monday, 4 October 2010 09:17 (thirteen years ago) link

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

Matt DC, Monday, 4 October 2010 09:21 (thirteen years ago) link

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'.

are you robot? (suzy), Monday, 4 October 2010 09:25 (thirteen years ago) link

twitter hating on some guy called bob crowe

former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, 4 October 2010 09:27 (thirteen years ago) link

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.

are you robot? (suzy), Monday, 4 October 2010 09:33 (thirteen years ago) link

tbf what exactly is a thatcherbaby anyway?

former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, 4 October 2010 09:44 (thirteen years ago) link

One that loves Thatcher like she was their mummy.

Mark G, Monday, 4 October 2010 09:46 (thirteen years ago) link

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.

Matt DC, Monday, 4 October 2010 09:50 (thirteen years ago) link

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

caek, Monday, 4 October 2010 09:55 (thirteen years ago) link

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.

caek, Monday, 4 October 2010 09:56 (thirteen years ago) link

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.

Matt DC, Monday, 4 October 2010 09:57 (thirteen years ago) link

Pretty sure a lot of people were annoyed about strikes in the 70s and 80s tbh.

a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Monday, 4 October 2010 09:58 (thirteen years ago) link

totally.

caek, Monday, 4 October 2010 10:01 (thirteen years ago) link

'thatcherbabies' just means 'british 20somethings who grew up under thatcher', right? we don't even know we're born, etc.

no szigeti (c sharp major), Monday, 4 October 2010 10:01 (thirteen years ago) link

Click on "Bob Crowe" on Twitter and treat yourself to a glimpse of the selfishness, viciousness and political illiteracy of the British public. The RMT need to get much better at getting their message out because most people seem to think they're doing it just to make people late for meetings and/or bring about a Marxist revolution.

Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Monday, 4 October 2010 10:02 (thirteen years ago) link

Click on "Bob Crowe" on Twitter

Shan't.

caek, Monday, 4 October 2010 10:03 (thirteen years ago) link

really worthwhile opinion that we needed to be alerted to

can anyone point me towards some sweet anonymous comments on the websites of local newspapers?

― J0rdan S., Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:42 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

caek, Monday, 4 October 2010 10:04 (thirteen years ago) link

I wasn't arguing, I was complaining about self-centred little shits. BIG DIFFERENCE. Thatcherbaby is what I call people who are kind of beyond reaching, because everything complicated that happens in this world is obviously put there to inconvenience and annoy them, their taxes pay for nothing but chavs and lazy assholes, and they focus on (ohhh, say) the wages of a union official 'whine wine I don't make that kind of money, why should he get to...' while letting proper fat cats slide. Maybe if they weren't so immature I wouldn't be calling them a baby anything?

are you robot? (suzy), Monday, 4 October 2010 10:05 (thirteen years ago) link

dom top of the bob crow twitter shitpile

former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, 4 October 2010 10:09 (thirteen years ago) link

xp I'd axe their benefits etc.

James Mitchell, Monday, 4 October 2010 10:12 (thirteen years ago) link

Osbournes stiff arms in that pic...must not touch the young conservatives...must not touch the young conservatives...

Duncan Donuts (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 4 October 2010 10:15 (thirteen years ago) link

EYES STRAIGHT AHEAD *Frances is going to kill me with GUNS*

are you robot? (suzy), Monday, 4 October 2010 10:17 (thirteen years ago) link

something about checking out the size of his fiscal deficit

former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, 4 October 2010 10:18 (thirteen years ago) link

RARE SIGHTING OF PRESENTABLE ENGLISH-GIRL ANKLE shame about rest of outfit and clear lack of familiarity with BUTTONS or IRON.

are you robot? (suzy), Monday, 4 October 2010 10:23 (thirteen years ago) link

why are tory women so warty?

former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, 4 October 2010 11:18 (thirteen years ago) link

It's the evil trying to get out.

Duncan Donuts (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 4 October 2010 11:22 (thirteen years ago) link

Osbourne pretending that the deficit is solely the result of public spending profligacy again.

Matt DC, Monday, 4 October 2010 11:23 (thirteen years ago) link

Didn't know this was going to be on: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-58/episode-3

James Mitchell, Monday, 4 October 2010 11:35 (thirteen years ago) link

That's the whole reason for the Coulson news revive TBH.

are you robot? (suzy), Monday, 4 October 2010 11:36 (thirteen years ago) link

oh it's peter oborne so it'll be the jews to blame, sorry i mean not to blame

former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, 4 October 2010 11:36 (thirteen years ago) link

to give the scrote some credit, nick robinson just said the reason they're cutting child benefit rather than winter fuel payments is that during the election cameron said something like 'read my lips: i will not cut winter fuel payments'. only osborne said last year he wouldn't cut child benefits. it does seem wrong that two people earning £43k can still claim. both my parents worked full-time throughout my childhood so i can barely get my head around the idea of the 'stay-home mums' the telegraph is whining about. i guess some of my friends' mums didn't work.

laughing out loud lol (history mayne), Monday, 4 October 2010 12:35 (thirteen years ago) link

I gave up work to look after the kids.

Duncan Donuts (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 4 October 2010 12:38 (thirteen years ago) link

I was a "stay-home-and-read-ilx dad'.

Duncan Donuts (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 4 October 2010 12:39 (thirteen years ago) link

i gave up work

former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, 4 October 2010 12:40 (thirteen years ago) link

(not to look after children)

former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, 4 October 2010 12:41 (thirteen years ago) link

the details of implementation sound a bit half-baked (lot of gymnastics to avoid calling it "means-tested", but looks like they've created an incentive for to avoid a salary between 41k and 41k+child benefits) and setting aside the axiomatic point about whether cuts are needed and how they should be timed, surely this has to be pretty much the least objectionable thing they could cut. totally fine with me tbqh.

caek, Monday, 4 October 2010 12:42 (thirteen years ago) link

my aul fella took foreign jobs to get away from the kids

i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Monday, 4 October 2010 12:43 (thirteen years ago) link

I'm not objecting to the cut per se, but (and I would say this of course - see upthread) I think the cut off point should be higher and I don;t understand why households on a lot more than my household should still get the money. That doesn't seem fair or "we're all in together" at all, just seems to be penalising me for going part-time to look after the kids (and read ilx).

Duncan Donuts (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 4 October 2010 12:50 (thirteen years ago) link

yes, not doing this on total household income being over twice the 40% limit seems (or something like that) seems, at best, stupid.

caek, Monday, 4 October 2010 12:53 (thirteen years ago) link

At the moment this feels like a (rough calculation) 3% pay cut. Ahh, fuck it, it's not like they've suddenly lost my vote, so they could probably care less.

Duncan Donuts (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 4 October 2010 13:01 (thirteen years ago) link

Lot of Tory voters will be on £44k though. Not doing it on combined salary seems kind of ridic, but I'm a bit wary of people being in favour of a cut as long as it's safely outside their own income band. £44k is well inside the top 10% of the country isn't it?

Matt DC, Monday, 4 October 2010 13:09 (thirteen years ago) link

ITV news took a typically lol perspective on it, focusing the questioning of some Tory person on how punishing 'traditional families' with the stay-at-home mum isn't a Tory way to go about things, but put like that it does seem like it could be a nice vote-loser.

Antoine Bugleboy (Merdeyeux), Monday, 4 October 2010 13:12 (thirteen years ago) link


This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.