2015 Election - antidotes?

She's not lowly. She's a partner, and was given £30,000 when the company was bought out.
It was in the Guardian and the Independent, Ana. I just thought I'd choose the DM article for balance.

<Clapsfor the DM article!>
<ignore me, I am in a silly mood!>

She works for the company. Only designs for them?
I must admit, I did think she owned it.

I used to work for a bank. Not sure that is quite the same, but there was no way I knew the ins and out of the bank I worked for. And I was far too lowly to be responsible for what went on at Head Office.

I'm sure the Guardian will catch up tomorrow

Cameron again, or his wife's company this time.
She must have realised, and the country trusts the Tories so much on the economy, doesn't it?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937589/Awkward-Luxury-leather-goods-firm-Smythson-PM-s-wife-Samantha-Cameron-works-based-tax-haven.html

I hope you notice that it's a DM article.

Hare's an interesting response by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to Cameron's pledge to cap benefits at £23,000.

"In response to Conservative plans to lower the benefits cap to £23,000, Helen Barnard Policy and Research Manager at JRF said:

“The evidence shows that out of 27 000 people affected so far by the Benefit Cap, only 2000 managed to get work, the vast majority just got poorer. Even where the cap does result in small numbers of people moving into work, if that work is low paid, insecure and unconnected to a ladder to better-paid work, it may not result in much improvement either in their living standards or in the cost to the country. In fact, there is evidence that pushing people into poor-quality work can reduce their chances of getting more stable, better-paid work later, meaning that they remain dependent on in-work benefits and are more likely to become unemployed again.

“Lowering the cap further will not tackle the underlying drivers of a rising benefit bill, namely: a lack of affordable housing and too many low-paid jobs. It makes a false comparison between in-work and out-of-work households, ignoring the considerable benefits received by those working on low incomes. It also ignores the differing needs of families of different sizes.

“Based on the evidence so far, if the benefit cap was lowered the majority of people affected wouldn’t get work or move house – they would just get poorer.” "

Is that really what Cameron wants? A big headline, but it does not affect that many people, although I cannot imagine any of them vote for him anyway.

What an absolute disgrace.

She has been to Greece to find out what austerity has done to the Greek people.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/louise-irvine/what-%27austerity%27-has-done-to-greek-healthcare

An article here from the NHA member who is going to stand against Jeremy Hunt in May.

partiesonthefringe.com/2015/01/31/if-you-dont-fight-youre-definitely-going-to-lose-interview-with-louise-irvine-of-national-health-action/

At the last election Polly Toynbee told all Guardian readers to hold their noses and vote Libdem. She's regretting it now, of course.

Bat-like papaoscar?
Come back soon x

Good to hear from you papaoscar

Resting upside down on my perch at the moment, * merlotgran *, but I'll be back!

Here's some very interesting research about the election.
Apparently the migrant share of the electorate is twice as large as the majority of the incumbent in at least 70 seats, including several key outer London and Midland marginal seats.

www.migrantsrights.org.uk/publications/policy-report/migrant-voters-2015-general-election

I wonder if any parties will change what they say about immigration, or at least tone it down.

wow. Thanks for that link. I am obviously wrong there then!

21%. That is considerable.

How would or could dc do anything about it though, without making people work harder and longer hours.
What is Britain doing wrong? Or is it the other countries doing wrong?
I thought that, ahem, the french didnt work hard, and had, ahem, 2 hour lunch breaks?

*soontobe" from the Guardian 20 February:

"Britain's productivity gap with its main developed country rivals is at its widest in 20 years, following the flat-lining of the economy after the deep recession of 2008-09.

"International comparisons released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that output per hour worked in the UK is 21% lower than the average for the other six members of the G7 – the US, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and Canada."

magpie Well it's nice to have one or two newspapers that provide a counterbalance to the right wing propaganda of the majority of the press in this country.

I think some of djs post is right, and some wrong.
I dont think that dc wants a seperist Great Britain.
And he cant be held responsible for the thoughts of the electorate.
I wouldnt have said that productivity is dismal either.

Once his party were unionists, now Wales never escapes prime ministerial mention without a sneer; under him Scotland came close to dissolving the United Kingdom

I thought Tony Blair et al managed to cause all the divisions. I have not heard DC sneering about Wales, rather being concerned about those of us who live here.
Wales only got devolution by the very narrowest of margins.
All such a waste of public money.

As usual, it's the spin that different people put on things!
Or, as I said before, 'it's the way you tell'em'

Believe it or not, I found myself agreeing with everything in the article.
djen I cannot believe that you agree with something you read in the Guardian

The Guardian Newspaper again, left wing propaganda.

"Cameron bequeaths a country that is fractious and anxious. He has proved to be the great separatist. Once his party were unionists, now Wales never escapes prime ministerial mention without a sneer; under him Scotland came close to dissolving the United Kingdom. Us and them has been his governing style. His macroeconomic policy failed; national debt has kept rising; productivity and investment levels are as dismal as the trade balance. Unpicking the values of the welfare state has meant undermining the idea that people should care for others beyond their own. The big society is hardly spoken of these days.

As recovery takes hold, the indices of inequality resume their upward flight: the top 1% has flourished in the great recession. Social mobility depends on opening up the closed spaces of elite Britain but they remain, as they were, stuffed with ex-public schoolboys. Social policy has ossified, no longer attuned to families with young children. The government has shrunk or shut Sure Start children’s centres, abandoning a great evidence-based experiment in improving the life chances of disadvantaged families.

Before Margaret Thatcher’s era, the Tories had a penchant for muddling through, avoiding confrontations and sharp edges; they were conservators, not wreckers. Cameron has gone much further than Thatcher dared. The survival of the United Kingdom itself is in doubt and it’s an open question who “the British” now are. An election result leaving the Tories at the helm would see more destruction, financial, social and moral. What they offer as a vision of who we are, what we value and where we belong in the world is small and mean."

The last three paragraphs of a very long article in the Guardian by David Walker and Polly Toynbee.
Believe it or not, I found myself agreeing with everything in the article. I think the book would be too depressing to read.

Ana, of course the tax payer subsidises employers. If employers pay low wages, and the employees have to apply for tax credits because of that, the tax payer is subsidising the employer.
You mentioned people who worked part-time getting tax credits. Not all people claiming tax credits work part time. Lots of them work full time and still get tax credits because they do not have enough money for the family to live on.

Durhamjen, you talked about employers being subsidised by the taxpayer, and that was the point I was disputing. Yes, you can lump all benefits together and of course the taxpayer pays at the end of the day.

It's a pity Miliband gave him the ammunition then - talking about 'weaponising' the NHS and refusing to admit that he ever said it (although there's no doubt that he did) put him on the back foot straight away.

All people in receipt of tax credits are being subsidised by the tax payer, Ana, even if it's paying taxes in, then taking tax credits out. It's all a subsidy, and it does not matter whether they want to work part time or not.

Even Alan Milburn was attacking Labour's ideas on the NHS.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/01/28/alan-milburn-s-personal-interest-in-resisting-a-public-nhs

This is why.
I thought Miliband did quite well. All Cameron can say is Weaponise. He did not answer the questions.

Labour can't argue about the mess [the NHS in Wales.]