Billy_Pilgrim
Member
Car crash Cameron interview on BBC right now
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
Really? I think he's doing fine. The numbers he's apparently 'bamboozling' with are quite straight forward and consistent. Not sure what you'd take as a good interview
Genuinely can't get my head round the minds of Lid Dem voters that have defected to Tory. Firstly, how libveral were you, exactly? Not fucking very, obviously. Secondly, why do you think the Lib Dem's had to abandon some of those policies? The Tories. And now you're going to vote for them. Utterly moronic.
I doubt there are many actual defections. A few to Labour but not enough, and lots just not voting or going green. Enough to fragment the vote so the Tories win.
Hopefully they won't take Cambridge. That suicidal mental health comment might see to that one.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Not on the least surprised at this. The South West is a bastion (so far as it is a bastion at all) of the old-style Liberal party - who are near-as-dammit good old-fashioned one-nation Tories in all but name, and react with something approaching terror at the prospect of the LibDems supporting a leftie Labour government. So tactical voting big time.
JonathanEx
Member
Over at Absolute Radio, William Hague is the substitute for Cameron in the Geoff Lloyd interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhqbuwHQjrY&feature=youtu.be
Even if you don't have 15 minutes, the first 15 seconds are very funny as Geoff suggests a nickname and Hague gets awkward.
Even if you don't have 15 minutes, the first 15 seconds are very funny as Geoff suggests a nickname and Hague gets awkward.
christ that opening is making me cringe.
It was just one page that said "IMMIGRANTS"
Fernando Fernandez
Member
The Sun must be having a competition with themselves on how terrible a front page they can make this election.
IdreamofHIME
Member
Against Gollum? How can anyone have a bad interview with him, he askes the most boring and un-probing questions.
Mama Robotnik
Member
Most of Thursday's front pages aren't too political. These three however, are considerably so:
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Coburn's greatest contribution to society was when he was on BBC's Scottish Independence Referendum Results coverage, and he went balls out and said "all of Scotland's problems are caused by the dead hand of socialism" at a round-table discussion with SNP, Labour, et al MSPs. Even the Tory MSP just rolled their eyes. That provided the comedy of the night. If only he had said that when Tommy Sheridan was there.
Honestly folks, if you only watch one car crash interview this election season make it this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKvZ2RKpiU&feature=youtu.be
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
65% of people being in favour of reducing the benefits cap to £23,000 and 51% being in favour of removing inheritance tax from £1m properties is depressing.
PJV3
Member
From YouGov
Interestingly the most popular one is the Tories minimum wage/tax proposal, although the actual policy is a bit different to what was presented (it only lifts people working a maximum of 30 hours on the national minimum wage out of income tax).
Glad to see free schools low on the list of Tory ideas.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Reducing the benefits cap is directly linked to the popularity of 'raising tax allowance so it is not in future paid by anyone in minimum wage', imo.
Jezbollah
Member
Holy shit.
From YouGov
Interestingly the most popular one is the Tories minimum wage/tax proposal, although the actual policy is a bit different to what was presented (it only lifts people working a maximum of 30 hours on the national minimum wage out of income tax).
Surprised at the 50% tax rate being that low. A lot of people must harbour a lot of false hope that they'll get to that level one day.
Why?
£23k is equivalent to a pre-tax salary of around £29,000 / $43,000
That's comparatively still high when likened to comparable countries worldwide
CyclopsRock
Member
Ha.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
That David Coburn interview is painful. What a disgusting human being. Fuck UKIP and their disgusting policies and attitudes.
Apparently he failed to graduate from the University of Leeds, which explains a lot.
Oh god he's gay and opposes gay marriage. Despite being a libertarian.
In fairness to UKIP, if you are going to have an EU referendum it is better to have it immediately. Not in x years.
Apparently he failed to graduate from the University of Leeds, which explains a lot.
Oh god he's gay and opposes gay marriage. Despite being a libertarian.
In fairness to UKIP, if you are going to have an EU referendum it is better to have it immediately. Not in x years.
Supposedly there's a Ipsos Mori poll out this afternoon which has one of the parties with a large lead. No indications on which side. Of course one poll is one poll and other than two polls last Friday showing a large Labour lead, and the ICM poll this week showing a large Tory lead everything else has been about even.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Because if you need support, you need support, and that support should be met. It's not like we give out £25k just to those to ask, you have to be in genuine need. If you're not in genuine need and we're giving it to you, the problem isn't the £25k part, it's the fact the screening process for who is in genuine need doesn't work very well. If you are in genuine need, why take it away?
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
UKIP's policies are ... do I really have to keep beating this dead horse about how much of a single-policy joke they are? At least research something before you put it on a manifesto and know what it means before going on a TV show to discuss it.
That and speaking as someone in a relationship with a non-EU national, I shouldn't have to defend myself against some bureaucrat simply because a political party slept-walked into enacting unethical policies just because it "sounded good" on paper.
C'mon son. Being a failure of a student makes you leadership material for Scottish parties nowadays. Stop hating and let's get on with getting pished watching the fitba.
Christ the BBC really don't have a spine do they?
The Tories didn't want to put Cameron in this debate, not exactly sure why they should get equal participation in the post debate spin room as parties who are actually attending. We didn't see Lib Dems or any of the other parties in the spin room at Sky. It gives the Tories a bit of the benefit without any of the risk.
The Tories didn't want to put Cameron in this debate, not exactly sure why they should get equal participation in the post debate spin room as parties who are actually attending. We didn't see Lib Dems or any of the other parties in the spin room at Sky. It gives the Tories a bit of the benefit without any of the risk.
CyclopsRock
Member
I agree. It's a popular policy because it feeds into the idea that people that go to work end up getting less than those who don't, but rationally if you're going to give people "free" money when they need it, putting artificial limits on it makes no sense. If you've come to the conclusion that people are getting too much money, either lower the tresholds or lower the amount they get. But artificial limits don't pass any rational test, imo.
Visualante2
Member
Rare I find myself nodding in agreement to a Mail front page. Glad to see right to buy have a poor reception in the Tory manifesto.
Why? She didnt get a discount and it was stock the HA wanted to sell. I presume she bought it in the open market. That's completely different from forced sales at discount prices
PJV3
Member
I think she's opposed to the policy because housing stock isn't being replaced, not that she's against people being able to buy them.
A good point.
Where do you draw the line though? If more and more people could justify requiring, say, £50,000. £60,000? £100,000? And if no arbratary limit was given would you get to a point where people (and they are out there) would amend their body or even lives to meet the criteria for access to money in many mulitples of what some earn in full time employment.
That question of 'genuine need' is a very, very difficult question. One persons definition of need will differ from anothers and I have sympathy in some respects for who sets that criteria as I feel people will take issue with it whatever it is depending on personal experience.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, if you can find me an example of someone who has managed to persuade the state they should get £100,000 in benefits a year, you might have a point. However, I quickly went to the government's benefit entitlement page and put in the most extreme combination of traits I could imagine (two 72-year old pensioners with 10 disabled children under the age of five with insufficient pension support living in Kensington and Chelsea) and still couldn't get above £36,252 yearly. So, your slippery slope argument requires the slope to be so immensely slippery that really there are probably other priorities to focus on.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
That's not necessarily a false hope, it might be a real fear.
Remember, for example, that the taxation of benefits-in-kind (as reported on P11D) was originally targetted at "high earners" - those earning the equivalent of about £100k - and now it kicks in at £8,500, well below the minimum wage.
Fiscal drag sucks.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I'd be genuinely impressed!
If anyone's worry about a 50% tax rate when they're on a standard wage, then I fear for their sanity. It's a flat rate they need to be wary of.
I was just responding directly to:
That to me is the slippery slope because peoples definition of support can be emotive and tricky to fit in with a practical screening process which, I agree as you imply, is the bigger issue here
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I don't think you are including everything in your calculation. It's not too hard to bang it up much more if there are also care provisions for the children - I know one family that's similar to your example (but only one disabled child, nowhere near as extreme) and their total benefits come to something like £70k if you add everything up.
They're not well off by any means, as their unavoidable care costs are spectacularly high. I would not swap their lives for mine, no way.
I'd say good on them for adopting these kids that nobody else wants.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The example I put in didn't include housing or tax credits because they're from a separate calculator, so that's probably the gap. I also just put in "moderate component" for the disability of all children because the form took ages to fill in, so maybe severe or particular disabilities accrue significant amounts more? Either way, to get high amounts you genuinely do have to be in a pretty desperate situation.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Our adoption system sounds pretty shoddy if it lets two 72 year olds with insufficient pension adopt 10 disabled kids :-/
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Indeed. My example has two full-time carers working shifts to provide round-the-clock cover for shockingly severe physical and mental disability.
That's no way to talk about Harriet Harman and Ed Balls' job taking care of Miliband
Eddie Izzard is campaigning here today with the local Labour candidate. Gonna escape work for a while and go see, although because I like him not really anything to do with the campaigning. It was pretty close last election around 400 votes difference between the winning Tory candidate and Labour.
What are the odds a group like UKIP could ever challenge for the leading party or official opposition? Just curious. I'm seeing the rise of nationalist and far right parties throughout Europe, and I'm just wondering. As white UK ages, demographics change, both European and Non-European immigration keep at their high levels, will they be able to capitalize on this? The poll above shows a 6% growth for them.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/04/nus-payback-time-union-to-send-ad-vans-to-cleggs-constituency/
Interesting thought experiment - there's been a lot of talk of the Lib Dems as kingmakers over the last few days. But what would happen if the Lib Dems are kingmakers BUT Clegg does not get returned as an MP?
It's not actually implausible. Their campaigns have always been heavily localised so other bits of the party might do better than Sheffield Hallam, and Clegg's polling position is not actually very good.
The Lib Dem process for appointing a new leader is not quick.
Interesting thought experiment - there's been a lot of talk of the Lib Dems as kingmakers over the last few days. But what would happen if the Lib Dems are kingmakers BUT Clegg does not get returned as an MP?
It's not actually implausible. Their campaigns have always been heavily localised so other bits of the party might do better than Sheffield Hallam, and Clegg's polling position is not actually very good.
The Lib Dem process for appointing a new leader is not quick.
Kotetsu534
Member
This is as good a breakdown as I could find on what proportion of the benefits (and tax credits) bill is taken by each sector of the population. This is based on 2011-2012, so I'm sure the numbers will look a little different today. There is a lot of information here that is unknown by the proverbial man in the street.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
Families with children: 18.41%
Unemployed people: 2.67%
People on low incomes: 20.8%
Elderly people: 42.3%
Sick and disabled: 15.53%
Bereaved people: 0.31%
Looking at individual benefits as opposed to the people who receive them, we see the "big beasts" are as follows:
Basic State Pension: 28.88%
Housing Benefit: 11.31%
Child Tax Credit: 10.96%
Additional State Pension: 8.02%
Disability Living Allowance: 6.26%
Child Benefit: 6.08%
Since there's been a continued effort to move people off DLA and on to the Personal Independence Payment, which has significantly more stringent criteria, I would assume that the government spends less on it today than it did in 2011-2012.
You will note, of course, that a family with children could contain people on low incomes, in which case they could draw benefits from both groups (e.g. Child Benefit + Child Tax Credit + Housing Benefit, possibly Working Tax Credits or Council Tax Benefit too).
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
Families with children: 18.41%
Unemployed people: 2.67%
People on low incomes: 20.8%
Elderly people: 42.3%
Sick and disabled: 15.53%
Bereaved people: 0.31%
Looking at individual benefits as opposed to the people who receive them, we see the "big beasts" are as follows:
Basic State Pension: 28.88%
Housing Benefit: 11.31%
Child Tax Credit: 10.96%
Additional State Pension: 8.02%
Disability Living Allowance: 6.26%
Child Benefit: 6.08%
Since there's been a continued effort to move people off DLA and on to the Personal Independence Payment, which has significantly more stringent criteria, I would assume that the government spends less on it today than it did in 2011-2012.
You will note, of course, that a family with children could contain people on low incomes, in which case they could draw benefits from both groups (e.g. Child Benefit + Child Tax Credit + Housing Benefit, possibly Working Tax Credits or Council Tax Benefit too).
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's probably unfair to describe UKIP as far right in the sense that the French Front National or Italian New Force are, although they certainly have isolated far right supporters. I think they're a closer analogue to the Tea Party than they are to anything else. The UK's most active far right movement is probably the English Defense League, and they're not doing so well.
As for their odds of becoming the leading party or official opposition, the chances are 0. They could win 25% of the vote and still only have ~50 seats. As it is they're probably going to win between 1 to 3.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked