Looking grim for Labour

[Dagenham Rover]

]

Breakfast TV this morning highlights how the Tories cut peoples income under the pretext that they raised the income.


Before the new national minimum wage came in carers that earned less than £102 pw were entitled to a carers allowance of £61pw, to claim tax credits they also had to work at least 16 hours pw. So a carer now working 16 hours pw on the new national minimum wage would earn an extra £3.04 pw but that would take them over the £102 pw threshold to recieve the carers allowance, so in actual fact a pay rise of £3.04 would result in a net income reduction of £58 pw due to the loss of the carers allowance!


Good old Tories eh, they'll still make sure the rich get their tax bill cut though!

The tax credit system should be abolished. It is a ludicrous system (of course it was thought up by that totally discredited idiot Gordon Brown). Carer's allowance should also be abolished. So before the minimum wage went up, someone could work 16 hours and get £102 per week. On top of this they could also get £61 per week so a total of £163 per week. On top of this they could get working tax credits!!! If they have children they'd also get child tax credits!!! It's no wonder they won't work more than 16 hours. They'd be crazy to do so. Have a part time job and get a full time income courtesy of the taxpayer. No wonder Labour got us into so much debt. No doubt a lot of these people are single parents getting housing benefit as well!!!

This is a totally ridiculous system. It all needs sorting out and the Tories are just the party for the job.

I'll also guarantee you this. If by some miracle Labour do get their grubby hands on power they won't change what the Tories have done. Other than the spare room subsidy I don't hear them saying they are going to reverse any Tory policies.

b*llocks!

How can they get a full time job when they are a full time carer!

I could also ask how can they get a part time job when they are a full time carer? If they want to care for their loved one then that is very admirable. They should not be rewarded for this on borrowed money for which the taxpayer has to pick up the bill. Let's not forget the person that is being cared for also gets a lot of money off the taxpayer.

We should have a better care system so people don't need to become carers. I'd be all for giving care workers a huge pay rise. They do one of the more difficult jobs out there and are paid a pittance. I'd pay them at least £20 per hour.

You haven't got a clue what you are on about yet again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[IC1967]

Yes I have. I have recent experience where a family member had a terminal condition and I couldn't believe the money that was thrown at the problem. Carer's allowance, working tax credits, child tax credit's, housing benefit, disability allowance (highest rate), industrial injuries benefit. That's just off the top of my head. They also got free care in a home for regular periods for respite and for when they eventually ended up in one before they died. The money coming in was unbelievable.

Trust me I am an expert in this field.

[Filo]

Yes I have. I have recent experience where a family member had a terminal condition and I couldn't believe the money that was thrown at the problem. Carer's allowance, working tax credits, child tax credit's, housing benefit, disability allowance (highest rate), industrial injuries benefit. That's just off the top of my head. They also got free care in a home for regular periods for respite and for when they eventually ended up in one before they died. The money coming in was unbelievable.

Trust me I am an expert in this field.

IIB, affects your child tax and working tax credits as well as housing benefits, they will not have claimed all those at the same time, unless it was done illegally!

[IC1967]

Put it this way. Over the course of a few years they managed to stash away over £30k. I was totally shocked at how much money they had coming in.

[Dagenham Rover]

30,000 stashed away and free care in a care home as well as  claiming all those benefits some of which can't be claimed together, strikes me there's  some benefit fraud going on there.

Trust me you haven't a clue

[BillyStubbsTears]

You know, the really endearing thing is that Mick, the man who is wrong on every number he ever posts, expects us to believe this £30,000 figure.

Mick the man who claims he made a £40k profit on the Scottish referendum.

Mick the man who once claimed that our debt was £6trillion higher than it actually is, and after a week of defending that, eventually said that the numbers didn't matter anyway.

Mick the man who posts incorrect unemployment numbers, then insists that his numbers are right even after I post a link to an Office of National Statistics article giving the official numbers.

And he still thinks we will listen to his latest invented number.

[IC1967]

30,000 stashed away and free care in a care home as well as  claiming all those benefits some of which can't be claimed together, strikes me there's  some benefit fraud going on there.

Trust me you haven't a clue

Hahaha. Whichever way you look at it they were getting far too much money off us taxpayers. No wonder the country is drowning in debt.

[IC1967]

You know, the really endearing thing is that Mick, the man who is wrong on every number he ever posts, expects us to believe this £30,000 figure


Mick the man who posts incorrect unemployment numbers, then insists that his numbers are right even after I post a link to an Office of National Statistics article giving the official numbers.

Yet more blatant lies. Anyone that doubts my figures are more than welcome to check them with the link you've posted. The only way any of the figures will be wrong is if I've made a genuine mistake. This just doesn't happen but I suppose there is a first time for everything.

[Wild Rover]

If you issue an abject apology for all your errors i'm sure all will forgive you.

[IC1967]

If you issue an abject apology for all your errors i'm sure all will forgive you.

I apologise abjectly for all the errors I've made in the past (even though I can't think of any).

[Dagenham Rover]

Perhaps you'd like to reimbursement the taxpayer for your family members misdemeanours as you obviously know all about what they were up to you'd only need a little bet on whose going to win the next election or just send your missis out for an extra night with the Betterware books

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

I pointed out that unemployment had risen under every single Tory Govt since the War. You said it hadn't because it had fallen under the 1970-74 Govt.

The 1970 Election was in June 1970. The first 1974 election was in Feb 1974.

Go and check the numbers yourself. I can't be arsed to do it for you - you've exhausted my patience.

I'll repeat by the way, that this doesn't matter. It's an irrelevant snapshot which fails to take account of the issues of the time.

The 1929-31 Labour Govt had to deal with the worldwide collapse due to the Wall Street Crash. The Wall Street Crash was not the fault of the Labour Govt. They could not do anything to prevent that, and their response was hamstrung by the fact that Churchill as Tory Chancellor had taken us onto the Gold Standard at a ruinous rate a few years earlier. (Keynes predicted what the outcome would be in his propehtic pamphlet "The Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill".)

The 1945 Labour Govt had to deal with the demobilisation after WWII and the resulting re-organisation of our economy from a wartime to a peacetime setting. That was not Labour's fault. In that light, the fact the unemployment was exceptionally low from 1945-51 (apart from a spike in the severe winter on 1947) is a near miracle> Compare and contrast with the unemployment that we experienced in the 6 years after WWI. 

The incoming 1974 Labour Govt had to deal with the recession brought on by the Middle East oil shock of Autumn 1973 and the fallout from the disastrous Barber Boom under the Tory Govt that let inflation off the leash.  Neither of those were Labour's fault, although the resulting unemployment under Labour was undoubtedly exacerbated by the cuts that Labour imposed following the IMF bailout (which wasn't necessary) in 76.

The Tory Govt of 1979-97 had to deal with the second oil shock of 1979, which led to a global recession and a subsequent global recession in 1990. Both of those inevitably led to increases in unemployment and were not something that Thatcher could have influenced. Although the resulting unemployment was undoubtedly increased greatly by the mad pro-cyclical fiscal experiment of 1981 which exacerbated our recession, and by the inflation that we had in the run-up to the 1990 recession caused by the Lawson-boom.

The Labour Govt of 1997-2010 had to deal with e global recession in 2001 (which the UK avoided and which did not lead to any increase in unemployment in the UK, then the horrific worldwide collapse of 2010. Neither of those were caused by the Labour Govt. Fascinatingly, even after the 2008 recession, unemployment was lower than in any other major Western country.

As I say, there are deep and complex reasons behind a country's economic performance. You, having the childlike approach that you have, want to boil everything down to a couple of numbers that allow you to say "Game, set and match". Just like a child who can't cope with a complex world would do.

[IC1967]

Mick

I pointed out that unemployment had risen under every single Tory Govt since the War. You said it hadn't because it had fallen under the 1970-74 Govt.

The 1970 Election was in June 1970. The first 1974 election was in Feb 1974.

Go and check the numbers yourself. I can't be arsed to do it for you - you've exhausted my patience.

I'll repeat by the way, that this doesn't matter. It's an irrelevant snapshot which fails to take account of the issues of the time.

The 1929-31 Labour Govt had to deal with the worldwide collapse due to the Wall Street Crash. The Wall Street Crash was not the fault of the Labour Govt. They could not do anything to prevent that, and their response was hamstrung by the fact that Churchill as Tory Chancellor had taken us onto the Gold Standard at a ruinous rate a few years earlier. (Keynes predicted what the outcome would be in his propehtic pamphlet "The Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill".)

The 1945 Labour Govt had to deal with the demobilisation after WWII and the resulting re-organisation of our economy from a wartime to a peacetime setting. That was not Labour's fault. In that light, the fact the unemployment was exceptionally low from 1945-51 (apart from a spike in the severe winter on 1947) is a near miracle> Compare and contrast with the unemployment that we experienced in the 6 years after WWI. 

The incoming 1974 Labour Govt had to deal with the recession brought on by the Middle East oil shock of Autumn 1973 and the fallout from the disastrous Barber Boom under the Tory Govt that let inflation off the leash.  Neither of those were Labour's fault, although the resulting unemployment under Labour was undoubtedly exacerbated by the cuts that Labour imposed following the IMF bailout (which wasn't necessary) in 76.

The Tory Govt of 1979-97 had to deal with the second oil shock of 1979, which led to a global recession and a subsequent global recession in 1990. Both of those inevitably led to increases in unemployment and were not something that Thatcher could have influenced. Although the resulting unemployment was undoubtedly increased greatly by the mad pro-cyclical fiscal experiment of 1981 which exacerbated our recession, and by the inflation that we had in the run-up to the 1990 recession caused by the Lawson-boom.

The Labour Govt of 1997-2010 had to deal with e global recession in 2001 (which the UK avoided and which did not lead to any increase in unemployment in the UK, then the horrific worldwide collapse of 2010. Neither of those were caused by the Labour Govt. Fascinatingly, even after the 2008 recession, unemployment was lower than in any other major Western country.

As I say, there are deep and complex reasons behind a country's economic performance. You, having the childlike approach that you have, want to boil everything down to a couple of numbers that allow you to say "Game, set and match". Just like a child who can't cope with a complex world would do.

Spare us the history lesson. Once again you've been selective about which stats you want to use and also about what time period you want to use. You claim with a straight face that a 0.1% increase which happened under the Tories twice is a rise. Talk about clutching at straws.

Look it's very simple. The Tories are brilliant at keeping unemployment down and Labour at rubbish at it.

Get over it. Just put it down as another argument you've lost against me.

[IC1967]

Perhaps you'd like to reimbursement the taxpayer for your family members misdemeanours as you obviously know all about what they were up to you'd only need a little bet on whose going to win the next election or just send your missis out for an extra night with the Betterware books

When I say family members, they are actually in-laws so don't quite qualify as being proper family. I don't know if they committed benefit fraud or not. All I know is that the benefits system was far too generous for their circumstances. I pay enough taxes already thank you very much. I won't be handing over more than is absolutely necessary to be squandered by clueless politicians.

[Dagenham Rover]

Perhaps you'd like to reimbursement the taxpayer for your family members misdemeanours as you obviously know all about what they were up to you'd only need a little bet on whose going to win the next election or just send your missis out for an extra night with the Betterware books

When I say family members, they are actually in-laws so don't quite qualify as being proper family. I don't know if they committed benefit fraud or not. All I know is that the benefits system was far too generous for their circumstances. I pay enough taxes already thank you very much. I won't be handing over more than is absolutely necessary to be squandered by clueless politicians.

You could always do the 'right thing' and report them to the benefits agency 

[Filo]

Perhaps you'd like to reimbursement the taxpayer for your family members misdemeanours as you obviously know all about what they were up to you'd only need a little bet on whose going to win the next election or just send your missis out for an extra night with the Betterware books

When I say family members, they are actually in-laws so don't quite qualify as being proper family. I don't know if they committed benefit fraud or not. All I know is that the benefits system was far too generous for their circumstances. I pay enough taxes already thank you very much. I won't be handing over more than is absolutely necessary to be squandered by clueless politicians.

So basically when you mentioned Child, working tax credits and housing benefit you were lying!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

I've been selective about nothing. I have used the precise figures from the month of each general election.

In my job, I have to be precise about numbers. Otherwise people die. So I get shirty about d**kheads who play fast and loose with numbers to make a point.

I should ignore you because you are contemptible and not really worth bothering with. But you irk me because you are representative of people in political arguments who spout believable shit and sometimes convince people that they are right. Like the politician you support, that odious liar Farrage. You're two peas from the same lying pod.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No mention of the polls Mick?

I wonder why...

[IC1967]

Happy to oblige. I predict UKIP will get their first MP and come a close second to Labour in the early hours.

[IC1967]

You have been very selective in what you have said about the Tories record on unemployment. Firstly you only want to discuss after WWII. Not a surprise as before this period Labour are shown in their worst light and the Tories in their best light.

You claim that the Tories have seen unemployment rise every time they've formed a government. You are really taking the biscuit with that ludicrous statement.  It fell once and only rose by 0.1% twice. Their worst performance was a 0.3% rise. A performance hardly worthy of your damning statement.

Now get over it. You've lost the debate. It's time for you to move on. Get that abject apology sorted and we'll say no more about it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Go and get f**ked. When I have discussed in the past the lessons from the economic catastrophe that was the Great Depression, you said that they were so far in the past that they were irrelevant. Tonight you said "spare us the history lesson". Despite it being YOU who raised the issue about past unemployment in the first f**king place.

You are like a random argument machine. Fortunately, I'm in China next week drumming up business for the UK and I understand that the Chinese Govt have a d**khead filter on the internet, so I won't be able to read your witless prattling for a whole week.

[IC1967]

Enjoy yourself while you're there. You should feel quite at home.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Poor for Labour and the Tories last night - UKIP are certainly changing things like it or not.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Struggling to see where this "poor for Labour" narrative is coming from.

Labour won the seat. They increased their vote share. The turnout was tiny and it is quite clear what happens in this sort of situation - the supporters of the comfortable incumbent don't get out in force in a by-election. Those who are driven to support an insurgent get out in force. It's happened regularly for decades. With the LDs. With the SDP before them. Now it's happening with UKIP.

Yesterday's turnout in Heywood & Middleton was nearly 20,000 down on the 2010 general election. Those who stayed at home will, by and large, not be UKIP voters. UKIP are on a roll and people who support them were enthused to go and vote. Most of them will be complacent or disillusioned Labour supporters.

In a general election, far more of those who stayed at home yesterday will get out and vote. Labour will win that seat by 8-15000 in the general election.

It's also notable that the Tory and LD vote collapsed in Heywood. Seems clear that the UKIP surge was predominantly down to them taking votes off the Tories and LDs.

The Clacton by election is a different kettle of fish. There the turnout wasn't down by nearly so much. And the vote for Tory, Labour and LD utterly collapsed.

The message is quite clear. In certain places (like Clacton) UKIP  can take votes off all the parties. I suspect we'll see that these seats are mainly ones where Labour has little chance and UKIP can really hurt the Tories by taking votes off both them and the other parties.

In the North, in urban seats, it will be impossible for UKIP to break through just by tasking votes off Con & LD. They need to take a lot of Labour votes too. There is no sign of them doing that last night.

[IC1967]

Hahahahahahahaha. Unbelievably complacent.

[IC1967]

Make no mistake. UKIP would have won Heywood if they'd put in the campaigning effort. They are kicking themselves because they thought they had no chance and didn't put much effort in. Labour threw the kitchen sink at it. Labour are finished in the North.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes Mick

UKIP will win how many seats in the North next May? Let's have another one of your perceptive predictions that are so rarely out of line with reality.

[Filo]

Yes Mick

UKIP will win how many seats in the North next May? Let's have another one of your perceptive predictions that are so rarely out of line with reality.

Before Mick gives his prediction, can we have definitive boundries for the "North" so that mick can't bluster when his predictions fail

[Dagenham Rover]

And a proper screenshot of his betting slip so when he wins he can  pay the taxpayer back for his family's misdemeanours

[IC1967]

Yes Mick

UKIP will win how many seats in the North next May? Let's have another one of your perceptive predictions that are so rarely out of line with reality.

The bandwagon is rolling and picking up speed. I predict at least 20 seats in the North including red Ed's.