Has that article taken it's employed stats from the Job C?
EDIT. No need to reply I just looked it up.
EDIT. No need to reply I just looked it up.
Last edited:
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
IDS is one of my most despised individuals button I'm glad this will hit Osbourne at least. Once upon a time hitting the disabled was even an affront to the Tory party, I remember them arguing against Labour on the point.
If Corbyn can't make inroads over the next 6 months then we'll know it's time for him to hand over the reigns.
If Corbyn can't make inroads over the next 6 months then we'll know it's time for him to hand over the reigns.
Surprised we have not heard more from Corbyn and the Labour Party overall already. I guess that is Corbyn's style, but surely most voters are not rational thinkers, they just need to see a screw turned at the right moment, and that moment is now.
One way or a another, it will be the EU Ref which determines the shape of the future Cabinet, nothing else. Should Brexit be triumphant, Labour shall face even greater policy challenges than the Government (at least in the immediate term).
It sill is. that's why there was talk of a rebellion as early as Thursday morning.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but IDS came across quite well on Marr.
Tim... Nice but dim
By the wider party perhaps but evidently not the leadership. Osbourne's long term economic plan mantra has over reached into every policy and department and I think the rebellion is as much against him making policy decisions aimed at aiding his leadership bid.
It'll be interesting to see the ongoing struggle between Boris and Osbourne. Not sure who'll come out on top, the damage may make way for a lesser known prospect to prosper.
He attacked Osborne for about austerity. Very hypocritical interview IMO.
So IDS is concerned that his party risk dividing society. Think they've done a good job of that already.
Stephen crabb... I think he genuinely could plough a path straight through both sides and become the concensus candidate
IDS shocked by all the things IDS did while in charge of DWP. Calls for IDS to resign. IDS agrees.
He slips occasionally and says he is concerned that they are "seen as unfair" rather than just "unfair". I don't think he has suddenly grown a heart, nor that his views on welfare are at all left-wing. But he did a reasonably good job at dispelling suggestions it was primarily about Europe.
Agree with the extent of previous reforms or not, i thought IDS' argument had a plausible consistency to it. Ministers already had the licence to speak out in the name of Brexit, and neither is he a prospective leadership candidate, both qualities which lend his grievances more credibility.
In its way governing is much like any other arena of employment, that the individuals involved are politicians doesn't change that reality. Consider your own workplaces, for how long would you be tolerant of a superior comparable to Osborne (a breakdown in communication, high-handed decision making e.t.c.)?
In its way governing is much like any other arena of employment, that the individuals involved are politicians doesn't change that reality. Consider your own workplaces, for how long would you be tolerant of a superior comparable to Osborne (a breakdown in communication, high-handed decision making e.t.c.)?
He made a strong point on all the cuts falling on work age benefits which I hadn't thought about before. It is funny hearing the Tories pull him to pieces when three days ago he was the be all and end all for them on the benefit system.
Surely a Boris/ IDS 'ticket' is completely unelectable? But then I think the same about Corbyn, McDonnell and of course Osborne... someone has to get elected in 2020!
You're right TH, both are obviously unelectable. Good grief, we get more like America every day,
Yeah, but simply saying you're for Brexit isn't as damning against Osborne as actually resigning from the cabinet. One implies you disagree with his opinion; the other implies you disagree with his ideology, to an extent.
Part of me thinks that too. For all of Boris' supposed buffoonish popularity, he's still hilariously incompetent when it comes to questioning...which is fine for a mayor, but would probably be under a lot more scrutiny if he was a prospective PM. With the guys baggage and general being an arsehole, I think he's a little bit unelectable...although as you say Corbyn is too. Could even it up between the Tories and Labour.
I don't doubt that there is ideology at play in the case, rather that Brexit forms one small component of such. Osborne's style of governing, the policies presently being pursued at No 11, his presumed status as heir apparent, all are likely to be of greater relevance IMO.
Voters behold an original amongst a cast of limited or insipid characters, nor are his views so impractical as Corbyn's. Boris is also more intelligent than many colleagues, writing such articles as these: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-an-Islamic-Europe-remember-the-Alhambra.html
Were the debate to grow damagingly bitter an outsider might find a path to the leadership, in which event i'd suggest Javid as the most likely at this point. Nominally attached to the Remain campaign, but not a brash member of the Project Fear brigade.
Last edited:
Wow United beat City and the Iain Duncan Smith fecks off.
And they said the good days were over.
And they said the good days were over.
Be very careful, Boris has spent many years cultivating these sort of views of himself. He's vastly more intelligent than many people give him credit for.
The IDS way: Victorian morality, reforming zeal and gross incompetence
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...an-morality-reforming-zeal-gross-incompetence
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...an-morality-reforming-zeal-gross-incompetence
Oh dear, Corbyn's annoyed at Cameron and Osborne. Never heard him shout like that before.
Calm answer from Cameron though. (Osborne absent, presumably still in floods of tears)
Calm answer from Cameron though. (Osborne absent, presumably still in floods of tears)
UKIP already using terrorist attacks for political gain.
How ironic the UKIP member speaking from his plush flat in Brussels.
boy George having to face parliament post ids will obviously be down the news agenda.
Is he doing Karma Chameleon?
he's been listening to 'do you really want to hurt me'[got beat to it]
but his second Omni shambles of a budget and his credibility or lack of it is going to be hidden by a bad news day
Ugh. Nicky Morgan just doesn't strike me as intelligent.
Is it possible not to come across as foolish when defending one of the Osborne's half-baked bean counting exercises? The Chancellor so very rarely puts himself in harm's way of the media either, just ask Chloe Smith.
Having said all that, Morgan really began to lose her way there when she started prattling on about "other percentiles".
Having said all that, Morgan really began to lose her way there when she started prattling on about "other percentiles".
She loses her way whenever someone else in the room talks.
Surely somebody will blink? Public support shall begin to turn against the doctors otherwise i think.
It might finally force Cameron to sack Hunt i suppose, as voters won't be particularly forgiving of the Government either.
Last edited:
Doctor's don't have to be reelected so I can't see them blinking first.
How could she sit there and say there will be no more cuts to Welfare in this parliament. They still have to find 12bn which they still refuse to say where it will come from. But looking at that graph it won't be the richest in society
Do you have no concerns at all about junior doctors withdrawing emergency care?
Osborne said during his statement to the Commons that the 12bn figure has already been met, or so reports the Guardian's Rowena Mason.
McDonnell's attack piece for the Guardian is very good. Admittedly I'm one of his few fans on here.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/23/george-osborne-budet-economics
Edit: Added link and article
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/23/george-osborne-budet-economics
George Osborne is unfit to hold office | John McDonnell
It’s said that a week is a long time in politics – but under this chancellor a weekend is the length of a “long-term economic plan”. That’s exactly how long George Osborne was able to stand up his own budget before it collapsed.
It’s unprecedented in modern history for a budget, the centrepiece of a government’s economic policymaking, to disintegrate so rapidly. Yet Osborne has achieved it.
Under intense political pressure, he has reversed his cuts to disability benefit. Within four days of presenting his budget to parliament, it no longer adds up,. And remarkably he has been forced into accepting two opposition amendments, on tampon tax and solar subsidies.
The attempted defence in parliament revealed two central facts. First, that he will not apologise to those many thousands of people with disabilities who have spent more than a week worrying about the loss of their essential payments. Yet he was able to say he was “sorry” that his fellow Tory Iain Duncan Smith resigned.
The personal independence payment (PIP) is paid out to allow those who have disabilities to live with some autonomy, often in order to enable people to get to work. This is state support for things such as preparing or eating food, washing and bathing, reading and communicating.
To propose taking up to £150 a week away from disabled people that helps them to live independently and with dignity is a chilling example of the lengths Osborne is willing to go to in putting his own political career ahead of the long-term good of our nation.
The cuts to PIP are morally indefensible, and reveal a chancellor that has chosen austerity over basic humanity.
Second, it is clear from his speech that the chancellor has no idea how he is going to fill the £4.4bn black hole left in his budget. Osborne confidently believes that by autumn the losses would be “absorbed”. But you can’t “absorb” £4.4bn. In reality, paying for this means cuts elsewhere, or stealth taxes – something the chancellor has become rather adept at.
He is, in other words, banking on a more favourable outlook for the economy by the time we get to the autumn statement. This is the equivalent of hoping to find money down the back of the sofa. As Robert Chote, director of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), put it when announcing pessimistic new forecasts: “What the sofa gives, the sofa can also take away.”This is why I said he was more a chancer than a chancellor.
George Osborne could, very easily, pay for PIP by reversing his cuts to capital gains tax, which benefit the richest 5%, and the projected cuts to corporation tax. But he will not do this because at the centre of his budget was a cold political decision. The chancellor wants to achieve a surplus on government spending by 2019-20, by spending £10bn less than it receives in taxes.
He claimed he would eliminate the deficit by last year; it is still over £70bn. He claimed he would be bringing down the government’s debt burden, relative to GDP; it is rising and set to rise further.
The OBR has revised growth forecasts down. They have revised wage growth down. They have revised business investment down. They have revised productivity down.
The productivity slump is the most fundamental problem. It is the weakness of productivity that undermined wider growth. This is a domestic issue for which Osborne must take responsibility. He has presided over a low-wage, low-productivity, low-investment recovery that is built on sand.
Instead of cutting government investment, still scheduled to fall over the lifetime of this parliament, he should be following the advice of the IMF, the OECD, the CBI, the TUC and international experts in driving investment up.
Labour’s fiscal credibility rule, developed in consultation with, and supported by, world-leading economists, offers a framework through which we can eliminate the deficit fairly. We can avoid the counterproductive and cruel cuts we have seen under this government while allowing government the capacity to invest in the future.
But the chancellor clings to his surplus target because his political credibility would disappear entirely if he lost this last remaining fiscal rule. Not a single respectable economist can be found in defence of the surplus rule. But Osborne does not care how much pain it inflicts on the most vulnerable and he does not care how much damage it does to the economy. He cares very deeply, however, about his political career.
Not only have the chancellor’s plans been revealed to have no basis in economics but they are devoid of basic morality. He is not fit to hold the office.
It’s said that a week is a long time in politics – but under this chancellor a weekend is the length of a “long-term economic plan”. That’s exactly how long George Osborne was able to stand up his own budget before it collapsed.
It’s unprecedented in modern history for a budget, the centrepiece of a government’s economic policymaking, to disintegrate so rapidly. Yet Osborne has achieved it.
Under intense political pressure, he has reversed his cuts to disability benefit. Within four days of presenting his budget to parliament, it no longer adds up,. And remarkably he has been forced into accepting two opposition amendments, on tampon tax and solar subsidies.
The attempted defence in parliament revealed two central facts. First, that he will not apologise to those many thousands of people with disabilities who have spent more than a week worrying about the loss of their essential payments. Yet he was able to say he was “sorry” that his fellow Tory Iain Duncan Smith resigned.
The personal independence payment (PIP) is paid out to allow those who have disabilities to live with some autonomy, often in order to enable people to get to work. This is state support for things such as preparing or eating food, washing and bathing, reading and communicating.
To propose taking up to £150 a week away from disabled people that helps them to live independently and with dignity is a chilling example of the lengths Osborne is willing to go to in putting his own political career ahead of the long-term good of our nation.
The cuts to PIP are morally indefensible, and reveal a chancellor that has chosen austerity over basic humanity.
Second, it is clear from his speech that the chancellor has no idea how he is going to fill the £4.4bn black hole left in his budget. Osborne confidently believes that by autumn the losses would be “absorbed”. But you can’t “absorb” £4.4bn. In reality, paying for this means cuts elsewhere, or stealth taxes – something the chancellor has become rather adept at.
He is, in other words, banking on a more favourable outlook for the economy by the time we get to the autumn statement. This is the equivalent of hoping to find money down the back of the sofa. As Robert Chote, director of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), put it when announcing pessimistic new forecasts: “What the sofa gives, the sofa can also take away.”This is why I said he was more a chancer than a chancellor.
George Osborne could, very easily, pay for PIP by reversing his cuts to capital gains tax, which benefit the richest 5%, and the projected cuts to corporation tax. But he will not do this because at the centre of his budget was a cold political decision. The chancellor wants to achieve a surplus on government spending by 2019-20, by spending £10bn less than it receives in taxes.
He claimed he would eliminate the deficit by last year; it is still over £70bn. He claimed he would be bringing down the government’s debt burden, relative to GDP; it is rising and set to rise further.
The OBR has revised growth forecasts down. They have revised wage growth down. They have revised business investment down. They have revised productivity down.
The productivity slump is the most fundamental problem. It is the weakness of productivity that undermined wider growth. This is a domestic issue for which Osborne must take responsibility. He has presided over a low-wage, low-productivity, low-investment recovery that is built on sand.
Instead of cutting government investment, still scheduled to fall over the lifetime of this parliament, he should be following the advice of the IMF, the OECD, the CBI, the TUC and international experts in driving investment up.
Labour’s fiscal credibility rule, developed in consultation with, and supported by, world-leading economists, offers a framework through which we can eliminate the deficit fairly. We can avoid the counterproductive and cruel cuts we have seen under this government while allowing government the capacity to invest in the future.
But the chancellor clings to his surplus target because his political credibility would disappear entirely if he lost this last remaining fiscal rule. Not a single respectable economist can be found in defence of the surplus rule. But Osborne does not care how much pain it inflicts on the most vulnerable and he does not care how much damage it does to the economy. He cares very deeply, however, about his political career.
Not only have the chancellor’s plans been revealed to have no basis in economics but they are devoid of basic morality. He is not fit to hold the office.
Edit: Added link and article
Last edited:
Don't think it's going to happen. At most senior doctors will work the shift instead.