Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

3 monkies yes spot on. I have no time for the real work shirkers like the philpotts etc, they are scum but then again so is George Osbourne for trying to rake it up out of context and trying to divide and rule.

The lowest of the low.

DC - i like to think that i have the ability to think and do not necessarily agree partially or even at all with what a tory gov't may or may not do ..... i am also not incapable of thinking that parties of other hues sometimes or even often have good ideas worth consideration

from my earlier post, it is certainly clear that the labour chaps have suddenly admitted to considerable areas of agreement with the present gov't with regard to its method of overhauling the welfare system .... even HH surprisingly engages her brain from time to time

Labour is panicking over welfare: it's flying by the seat of Ed Miliband's pants, except Ed isn't wearing any




By Dan HodgesPoliticsLast updated: April 7th, 2013

Comment on thisComment on this article



Ed Miliband, absence of underpants just out of shot, has flipped 180 degrees on welfare

This morning the Observer splashes on reports that Labour is getting tough on welfare. “Labour plans radical shift over welfare state payouts”, is the headline above a story from Toby Helm and Daniel Boffey which claims that “A radical shakeup of the welfare state, under which benefit payments to those out of work or on low incomes would vary according to their past contributions to the state, is being considered by the Labour party.”

It’s accompanied by an article from the shadow work and pension secretary, Liam Byrne, in which he says: “These are desperate times for the government and I expected a desperate argument from George Osborne last week. This was when he would slash not only Britain's vital social safety net, but also help for working people – just at the very moment when he hands out tax cuts for the very rich. It's a vicious strategy and horrible politics.”

Is Liam Byrne having a laugh? It’s the Tories who are desperate, is it? It's George Osborne and David Cameron who are guilty of “horrible politics”?

Three months ago the Observer splashed on a rather different Labour welfare story. “Ed Miliband to wage war on George Osborne over benefit cuts”, the paper informed us: “Ed Miliband is to put Labour at the head of a national revolt to kill off the chancellor's latest benefit cuts as church leaders and leading charities unite in protest against the assault on welfare”. Not a word on any “radical shifts” in policy. Nor so much as a peep about “matching rights with responsibilities”.

So what’s changed? What has occurred in the last 12 weeks to bring about this “radical” change in Labour’s stance on welfare?

Mick Philpott. “Shameless Mick” if you prefer. It has taken the killing of six innocent children, public outrage over their deaths, and the spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer making political capital out of the tragedy for Ed Miliband to finally think “Hmmm, I think I might need to do something about this welfare stuff after all.”

Actually, if Labour’s shift in stance was the product of three months' careful deliberation, that wouldn’t be so bad. But it isn’t. It’s the product of a panic that has engulfed the Labour leadership over the past 72 hours.

On Tuesday morning Labour seriously thought they were winning the welfare debate. Ed Miliband’s senior advisors had heard Iain Duncan Smith’s gaffe on the Today program in which he’d claimed he could live on £53 a week, and were heartened. But then they were informed a petition challenging him to make good on his boast had passed 200,000 signatures. And they started to talk about a “defining moment” in the welfare debate.

But then Philpott was convicted, the Daily Mail made the welfare state an accessory to the fact, and Shameless George Osborne moved in for the kill. Labour’s initial response was to downplay the whole issue. Then they lost their heads, and dispatched Ed Balls to launch an hysterical attack on Osborne, driving the Chancellor’s comments to the top of the news bulletins, and making the Labour Party look like they had been employed as Mick Philpott’s defence attorneys.

Now we have the spectacle of Labour trying to recast itself as the party of welfare reform. Suddenly it’s Labour that wants to “make work pay”, is talking of responsibility at the bottom and threatening to remove people’s benefits. And good for Liam Byrne, because this is where Labour should be.

But it’s too late. Much too late. The welfare debate is over. And Labour has lost it.

Or rather, it’s Ed Miliband who has lost it. In his Observer report, Toby Helm states, “the Observer understands that detailed work is under way in the party's policy review on how to revolutionise the way the system works and address concerns that it promotes a 'something-for-nothing' culture.”

And he’s right, that work is under way. But it’s been under way for months. For well over a year in fact. And time and time and time again Ed Miliband has been urged to publicly sign up to this agenda. And time and time and time again, Ed Miliband has refused.

Remember that narrative that was being lovingly crafted last year about how it’s Ed Miliband who was making the political weather, Ed Miliband who gets all the big calls right? It’s fantasy. In reality Ed Miliband is terrified of his own shadow, and scared of getting caught in the rain.

Labour’s welfare debacle has revealed the true Ed Miliband. Timid, indecisive, fearful of conflict with the Left. This is not a Thick Of It sketch. Decisions on a major policy like welfare are being shaped by one Radio 4 interview, a poll on the Downing Street website and a conviction for manslaughter. When Hugh Grant was negotiating with Miliband he must have thought he was taking sweets from a child.

It’s a joke. Labour doesn’t have a plan or a strategy. It’s flying by the seat of its leader’s pants. Except its leader isn’t wearing any pants. Labour’s Emperor doesn’t have a stitch on. And yet his activists and his MPs and even some commentators catch a glimpse of a 10-point opinion poll lead and gush, “My, my, isn’t young master Miliband fashionably attired.”

Over the past couple of days the Left has been in ferment at David Cameron and George Osborne’s decision to link welfare to the Philpott killings. But at least Cameron and Osborne are being consistent in their cynicism, and the Philpott case is only being used to drive the presentation of their case on welfare. Ed Miliband’s response to Philpott has been to flip 180 degrees and launch an entirely new policy initiative.

If Ed Miliband wants to shift Labour’s stance on welfare, fine. In my view it’s what’s needed in political and policy terms. If he wants to take a principled stand in defence of welfare, that’s OK too. It will be politically suicidal and could well cost him the next election, but I could at least respect his stance. But Ed Miliband should be displaying the strength of leadership to make his mind up on these issues, not letting Mick Philpott make the decision for him.

This morning Liam Byrne has written “[George Osborne] disgusted me and demeaned the office of chancellor by using the crimes of Mick Philpott to support his attacks on people who claim benefit.” But if he hadn’t done that, Liam, you wouldn’t have written that article, and Ed Miliband wouldn’t have given you the green light to start talking about a new Labour party policy on welfare. It’s George Osborne who is demeaning his office? Really?

Read more by Dan Hodges on Telegraph Blogs
Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter


Tags: Ed Miliband, George Osborne, labour, Labour Party, Liam Byrne, Mick Philpott, welfare























Share





109

















Facebook





0

















Twitter





109



Labour is panicking over welfare: it's flying by the seat of Ed Miliband's pants, except Ed isn't wearing any




By Dan HodgesPoliticsLast updated: April 7th, 2013

Comment on thisComment on this article



Ed Miliband, absence of underpants just out of shot, has flipped 180 degrees on welfare

This morning the Observer splashes on reports that Labour is getting tough on welfare. “Labour plans radical shift over welfare state payouts”, is the headline above a story from Toby Helm and Daniel Boffey which claims that “A radical shakeup of the welfare state, under which benefit payments to those out of work or on low incomes would vary according to their past contributions to the state, is being considered by the Labour party.”

It’s accompanied by an article from the shadow work and pension secretary, Liam Byrne, in which he says: “These are desperate times for the government and I expected a desperate argument from George Osborne last week. This was when he would slash not only Britain's vital social safety net, but also help for working people – just at the very moment when he hands out tax cuts for the very rich. It's a vicious strategy and horrible politics.”

Is Liam Byrne having a laugh? It’s the Tories who are desperate, is it? It's George Osborne and David Cameron who are guilty of “horrible politics”?

Three months ago the Observer splashed on a rather different Labour welfare story. “Ed Miliband to wage war on George Osborne over benefit cuts”, the paper informed us: “Ed Miliband is to put Labour at the head of a national revolt to kill off the chancellor's latest benefit cuts as church leaders and leading charities unite in protest against the assault on welfare”. Not a word on any “radical shifts” in policy. Nor so much as a peep about “matching rights with responsibilities”.

So what’s changed? What has occurred in the last 12 weeks to bring about this “radical” change in Labour’s stance on welfare?

Mick Philpott. “Shameless Mick” if you prefer. It has taken the killing of six innocent children, public outrage over their deaths, and the spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer making political capital out of the tragedy for Ed Miliband to finally think “Hmmm, I think I might need to do something about this welfare stuff after all.”

Actually, if Labour’s shift in stance was the product of three months' careful deliberation, that wouldn’t be so bad. But it isn’t. It’s the product of a panic that has engulfed the Labour leadership over the past 72 hours.

On Tuesday morning Labour seriously thought they were winning the welfare debate. Ed Miliband’s senior advisors had heard Iain Duncan Smith’s gaffe on the Today program in which he’d claimed he could live on £53 a week, and were heartened. But then they were informed a petition challenging him to make good on his boast had passed 200,000 signatures. And they started to talk about a “defining moment” in the welfare debate.

But then Philpott was convicted, the Daily Mail made the welfare state an accessory to the fact, and Shameless George Osborne moved in for the kill. Labour’s initial response was to downplay the whole issue. Then they lost their heads, and dispatched Ed Balls to launch an hysterical attack on Osborne, driving the Chancellor’s comments to the top of the news bulletins, and making the Labour Party look like they had been employed as Mick Philpott’s defence attorneys.

Now we have the spectacle of Labour trying to recast itself as the party of welfare reform. Suddenly it’s Labour that wants to “make work pay”, is talking of responsibility at the bottom and threatening to remove people’s benefits. And good for Liam Byrne, because this is where Labour should be.

But it’s too late. Much too late. The welfare debate is over. And Labour has lost it.

Or rather, it’s Ed Miliband who has lost it. In his Observer report, Toby Helm states, “the Observer understands that detailed work is under way in the party's policy review on how to revolutionise the way the system works and address concerns that it promotes a 'something-for-nothing' culture.”

And he’s right, that work is under way. But it’s been under way for months. For well over a year in fact. And time and time and time again Ed Miliband has been urged to publicly sign up to this agenda. And time and time and time again, Ed Miliband has refused.

Remember that narrative that was being lovingly crafted last year about how it’s Ed Miliband who was making the political weather, Ed Miliband who gets all the big calls right? It’s fantasy. In reality Ed Miliband is terrified of his own shadow, and scared of getting caught in the rain.

Labour’s welfare debacle has revealed the true Ed Miliband. Timid, indecisive, fearful of conflict with the Left. This is not a Thick Of It sketch. Decisions on a major policy like welfare are being shaped by one Radio 4 interview, a poll on the Downing Street website and a conviction for manslaughter. When Hugh Grant was negotiating with Miliband he must have thought he was taking sweets from a child.

It’s a joke. Labour doesn’t have a plan or a strategy. It’s flying by the seat of its leader’s pants. Except its leader isn’t wearing any pants. Labour’s Emperor doesn’t have a stitch on. And yet his activists and his MPs and even some commentators catch a glimpse of a 10-point opinion poll lead and gush, “My, my, isn’t young master Miliband fashionably attired.”

Over the past couple of days the Left has been in ferment at David Cameron and George Osborne’s decision to link welfare to the Philpott killings. But at least Cameron and Osborne are being consistent in their cynicism, and the Philpott case is only being used to drive the presentation of their case on welfare. Ed Miliband’s response to Philpott has been to flip 180 degrees and launch an entirely new policy initiative.

If Ed Miliband wants to shift Labour’s stance on welfare, fine. In my view it’s what’s needed in political and policy terms. If he wants to take a principled stand in defence of welfare, that’s OK too. It will be politically suicidal and could well cost him the next election, but I could at least respect his stance. But Ed Miliband should be displaying the strength of leadership to make his mind up on these issues, not letting Mick Philpott make the decision for him.

This morning Liam Byrne has written “[George Osborne] disgusted me and demeaned the office of chancellor by using the crimes of Mick Philpott to support his attacks on people who claim benefit.” But if he hadn’t done that, Liam, you wouldn’t have written that article, and Ed Miliband wouldn’t have given you the green light to start talking about a new Labour party policy on welfare. It’s George Osborne who is demeaning his office? Really?

Read more by Dan Hodges on Telegraph Blogs
Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter


Tags: Ed Miliband, George Osborne, labour, Labour Party, Liam Byrne, Mick Philpott, welfare























Share





109

















Facebook





0

















Twitter





109

goldfinger
I do realise that you have filtered me. It is a great blessing not to have to read your silly replies to my posts. I have found that most peope who claim to filter people do not in fact. The use of the 'filter' is for weak minds that say they won't reply and then can't resist to do so.

Cynic what on earth are you talking about.

Labours policy on welfare benefits is nothing like that of the governments.

Have you been on the piss????????????

Either that or you just dont understand it!!!

Labour is panicking over welfare because they have realised that the public are largely behid the welfare cuts. It was the same in the Thatcher era. When the country has high unemployment, the opes in work are generally better off than when there is high employment. I remember it well when all the pundits said that Thatcher would lose due to high unemployment. In fact she won easily.

Cynic,

I am not sure that :

“labour was in power from 1997 to 2010, so they had oodles of time to change anything they didn't like - and felt was in the best interests of the country ..... it pretty much follows, that if they change or reverse something, they figured it wasn't so bad after all ..... not quite fair i will accept”
makes sense, but if my guesses are right

I partially agree with you, but a mistake they made in 1997 was committing to “spending restrictions of the previous government”.

This commitment was partially given to make them electable and probably the awareness of the “rawness” they might have, if they got into power. What effect that had on their policies I am not sure and maybe interesting to read some of the “political and new paper” commentaries of the success of labour government management of the economy for the period 1997-2006.
I came across this, written at time of when disaster was imminent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/boom-and-bust-britain-2006-465527.html


Boom and Bust Britain, 2006

Boom: city bonuses hit a record £7.5bn; 3,000 workers given at least £1m; sales of penthouses, fast cars and champagne at all-time high.

Bust: house repossessions up 70% to highest level since the 1991 crash; mortgage arrears up 21%; record 70,000 go bankrupt, a 51% rise

SATURDAY 04 FEBRUARY 2006
-------------
I think many people were aware of problems ahead and recall reading postings by some flogging off their housing and looking around for safe havens for their cash etc..
I doubt that the government and was George Brown did not see the impending problems, but they did not expect the “crash” to be so big and also against the “euphoria” of market and those grabbing as much as they could on an expectancy it would go on forever and do what they could do to stem the problem, partially driven from abroad.
The necessary changes would not have been accepted by the City, the political opposition and the public as a whole.

A period of buy a house, paint the wall and buy a few tubs of flowers, take a breath and then sell the house on, for a 10-20% gain. This feast was driven as if it was a party game, by “Buy It and Flog It” programmes on the TV, with modern day gurus telling you how to do it.

The same was being done by the glorified banking services.

However, the government of the day should have tried to stem the craziness and not
doing so partially led to the depth of the UK’s present problems.

The problem now is that George’s policies aren’t working and we have had 25% devaluation without surge any surge in GDP (partially due to world economy), even Japan and Portugal have eventually learnt the lesson of disproportionate austerity.

I think George is digging deeper and deeper and the effects will be on the poorest in the country, and the total wealth of the country is being distributed inappropriately, the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. The poor did not cause the problem but are being made scapegoats by a nasty party and the fellow travellers.
-------------------------

cynic
Now you have upset him by sujecting that Labour might do anything similar to the Conservatives.

This debate on welfare is a last desperate attempt by Cameron and boy George to get themselves out of the poo.

Some of the public have fallen for it just like they did with Camerons lies about bringing down the debt level.

Thing is at the next general election the STUDENTS will make sure Labour win with a overall big majority.

They havent forgotten how they have been saddled with 30 grand debt from the kick off.

a mistake they made in 1997 was committing to “spending restrictions of the previous government”. ..... but fred, there was nothing on reconsideration to have stopped them changing their minds and reversing any number of things ..... gov'ts of all hues do it all the time, so clearly they came to the conclusion that these spending restrictions weren't so stupid after all

============

3m - i thoroughly agree, though the "do gooders brigade" will complain that that is so unfair to force people who want benefits to do some useful social work - e.g. picking up rubbish on the verges; looking after cemeteries etc etc

The problem with Welfare is whether it goes to those who "need it", or those who are thought to deserve it.

Also, there are question to ask about incessant "need" to increase GDP, rather than maintaining the level the available "work" and "rewards" more evenly.

What is the need for a lot of "things" we are producing other than to fill rubbish heaps?

Could not those who are "unemployed" be rewarded for doing services to "society and the environment" at a non-prejudicial rate of pay, for intermittent periods of time?

conversely, to refuse reward for those who decline to be so employed

Fred best we just ignore cynic.

Hes just out to cause an argument and doesnt even believe what he says himself.

Cynic ....By the way Im half way through the thread where you posted those photos of yourself and pals on cycles.

I do hope you look like a pensioner, my re-call is that you looked like someone in late 30s.

We will see.

it would be more useful if you could tell me how to post other pix of our cycling trips, as i really haven't a clue

btw, i'ld accept that i may look more like early/mid 50s, but if someone in their 30s looks like me, they should request the application of assisted euthanasia immediately!

he he he dont wory bud just a few hours before you are exposed as a phoney.

Cynic,

I know it is long winded, but read what I posted.

I was just observing what they did and guessing at the reasons for them doing so.

As far as changing decisions are concerned.

If you made a genuine mistake, accept that it was incorrect, or circumstances have changed, and apologise and try to make amends. Sometimes, resigning is appropriate action.

goldfinger, you probably missed this so helpfully I repost for you to comment.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

hilary - 03 Apr 2013 21:03 - 22744 of 22923

Goldfinger,

Not that you'll be able to read this of course, but for a taxpayer to be better off to the tune of £100k as a result of a 5% cut in the uppermost tax rate, I calculate they'd need to be earning £2.15m pa. As a multi-millionaire accountant yourself, I would have thought you'd have realised that?

The dogoodders brigade does not rest with me - I want to do good and help people if I can but I certainly will not help anybody who will not try. Been a conservative since I was old enough to vote, so be it, I am not easy on this lot but we shall see.

Hiliary,

It is a the disproportionate treatment of one part of society at the expense of others that it important.

Also, the flagrant irresponsibility of this government to all parts of society, when it introduces new policies.

Fred, whenst did Hilary comment on the recent comments???? Or have I missed something?