I take your point (especially as he's apologised for it less than 24 hours after. I don't even know what to say...), although you could argue a lot of our 'traditional' voters read the Sun anyway.

 

But even in that case, did they think really think people would think "oh, he reads the Sun, just like me! I'll vote for him now". The patronising stupidity some people at the top of that party seem to have knows no bounds.

Edited June 13, 201411 yr by Danny

But even in that case, did they think really think people would think "oh, he reads the Sun, just like me! I'll vote for him now".

No, I think they responded to a request to pose with The Sun to avoid getting even more attacks from them if he didn't (I don't think they for a second thought posing with The Sun would make them positive towards him).

There are plenty of LibDems slamming Clegg for the same reason. Frankly, I don't think any party leader should have got involved with a blatant publicity stunt for any paper, whether a respectable one or the Sun.

Of course it is impossible to be certain what proportion of the benefits bill is lost to fraud but I would prefer a figure obtained by proper statistical analysis (the 0.7% figure) than anything based on anecdote and guess work. It should also be noted that the estimated amount lost to fraud is LOWER than the estimated amount unpaid due to error or failure to claim. If the full entitlement paid to everybody - and not a penny more or a penny less - was paid out, the bill would increase.

 

The problem with estimates in opinion polls is that it is determined by the respondents' perception of "fraud". If you look at the detailed figures - as I have - it is clear that some people define it as "people claiming money I don't think they should be allowed to claim even if it is entirely legal". Some people estimate "fraud" to be well over 90% which is completely preposterous unless you feel that the whole system - including the state pension - should be abolished. Of course, these ludicrous over-estimates help to bring up the average to produce the ridiculous figure of around 23%.

 

 

which is why I would expect that 0.7% estimate to be those individuals caught by staff while working on other jobs cash in hand. No government figures can ever take into account people's INTENTION to work or not to work, that's impossible. There are, and always have been, a minority of people perfectly happy not to work. They don't like it and can get by perfectly well on benefits because (happily) we have a very generous social care system in the UK. To ignore perceptions that aren't necessarily based on Daily mail headlines, but on other people's personal-life anecdotal experiences is to invite UKIP in.

 

The basic question to anyone on Buzzjack is - how many unemployed people do you know personally? What proportion of them are very motivated to take a job, any job, rather than live off the state? Perhaps my impressions are based too much on my family and friends and their family and friends, and people who work with people claiming benefits, and people who visit the homes of people claiming benefits, but it is annoying having everyone who is unemployed lumped into the same "victim of society" bracket when everyone I personally know in that position is there from choice or ill-health, not bad luck.

 

Most unemployed people get jobs fairly quickly (if they have skills) or not-so-quickly in areas of the UK that have employment problems, or with no skills, but long-term unemployed people need special attention, including expanding training and skills in work placements in order to get benefits - this is not very popular with SOME of those on benefits, but it's good for them in the long run and good for society in the long run not to have an underclass of people used to not having to work to support themselves. At the very least it's a good way of heading off severe depression, cos sometimes people are their own worst enemy. God knows Councils could do with unemployed graduates helping them out and getting work skills in to the bargain to stick on that CV - as long as it's genuine, short-term and not a way to avoid paying proper wages and jobs.

 

Please have a word with Ed, he needs to boost his profile with the working-class voter... :o

 

 

 

 

Piece in today's Sun saying that Labour's private polling telling them they'll only gain about 30 of the 68 seats they need for an overall majority. Another hung parliament looms it says but Miliband could still become PM in a coalition. They say basically what's been said above, that Ed needs to raise his profile with the working class voter and promise to be tougher on immigration and stuff they care about to have any chance of a majority. Up to 5 seats predicted for UKIP. :o

Edited June 14, 201411 yr by Common Sense

Much as I agree he's in desperate need of appealing to working-class voters, no-one would believe him if he pretends to be "tough on immigration" anyway :rofl: It would just look like yet another cringeworthy desperate attempt to grub around for votes and saying anything to get them. That's even leaving aside the ethics of playing into the borderline-racist climate of demonising immigrants atm.

 

5-10 seats for UKIP sounds about right to me. They are going to SWEEP through Essex in particular.

Edited June 14, 201411 yr by Danny

... but long-term unemployed people need special attention, including expanding training and skills in work placements in order to get benefits ....

 

Please have a word with Ed, he needs to boost his profile with the working-class voter... :o

 

Good to know Ed reads my posts, re: todays announcements.... B-)

 

just saying....

Good to know Ed reads my posts, re: todays announcements.... B-)

 

just saying....

 

That mess of a "policy" he announced today is not going to convince anyone :lol:

A horrible decision from Labour, just when they began to win me over again with their 'Owls for Everyone' policy.

A horrible decision from Labour, just when they began to win me over again with their 'Owls for Everyone' policy.

 

It speaks volumes of how inept they are at politics that their "owls" policy will probably get more public attention than any of their other tortured, thinktank messes.

What part of 'out-of-work benefits for under 25s will be dependent on them training' isn't simplistic and 'un-think tanky' enough for you?

 

Seven bells I hate the left-wing press. You'd think from the way they're reporting it we were scrapping benefits for under 25s totally. I'd remove the means testing element and give it three months' leeway if it were down to me, but if anything making it conditional on training is a good thing. What the hell is progressive about the current system? It certainly doesn't offer much support to the long-term unemployed under 25 as it stands now. This offers self-improvement.

speaking as someone who has languished unhelped by anyone for nearly 3 years at home, I can confirm it's soul destroying, and the amount I lived on was NOT job seekers allowance - if you hadnt worked for long enough you weren't eligible, so I made do with £14 a week and my parents supported me other than that. Supplementary benefit I think it was called...

 

Working towards something, getting skills is the only way forward. Throwing money at someone isn't. The biggest single-help to me in getting a job? Passing my driving test (enlisting family and friends to teach me), every single one of my subsequent jobs has required that as an essential. I suggest giving that priority to enormously expand on the jobs available. Now if governments paid for the testing it would probably work out very cost effective in getting people into jobs.....

Edited June 20, 201411 yr by popchartfreak

What part of 'out-of-work benefits for under 25s will be dependent on them training' isn't simplistic and 'un-think tanky' enough for you?

 

Seven bells I hate the left-wing press. You'd think from the way they're reporting it we were scrapping benefits for under 25s totally. I'd remove the means testing element and give it three months' leeway if it were down to me, but if anything making it conditional on training is a good thing. What the hell is progressive about the current system? It certainly doesn't offer much support to the long-term unemployed under 25 as it stands now. This offers self-improvement.

 

Don't you ever get tired of dancing on the head of a pin, trying to pick out some microscopic difference between Labour's various policies and the evil Tories' to try and convince that it's somehow better and "fairer"? :lol: One look at Labourlist will tell you that activists are not willing to do it.

 

The fact it's shameless unprincipled pandering goes without saying, but it's poorly thought through with gaping holes to boot. Where is the money for the extra training everyone will have going to come from, given they're so keen to tell us how careful with money they'll be? What happens if unemployed people who have wealthy parents simply refuse to support their kids? More than anything else, where are the jobs going to come from for all these people since they apparently believe "the markets" wouldn't accept the horror of a government paying for everyone to have a job?

 

 

speaking as someone who has languished unhelped by anyone for nearly 3 years at home, I can confirm it's soul destroying, and the amount I lived on was NOT job seekers allowance - if you hadnt worked for long enough you weren't eligible, so I made do with £14 a week and my parents supported me other than that. Supplementary benefit I think it was called...

 

Working towards something, getting skills is the only way forward. Throwing money at someone isn't. The biggest single-help to me in getting a job? Passing my driving test (enlisting family and friends to teach me), every single one of my subsequent jobs has required that as an essential. I suggest giving that priority to enormously expand on the jobs available. Now if governments paid for the testing it would probably work out very cost effective in getting people into jobs.....

 

I actually completely agree, I don't think anyone really thinks it's healthy or "acceptable" to not ever have a job throughout your life. The issue is how you actually get people to a place where they can actually hold down a job. Throwing people into the deep-end and expecting them to start swimming immediately by holding down a full-time job is just not going to work. Sure, you'll get the occasional lazy person who had the ability to work all along who just couldn't be bothered, and who will cope fine once they're actually forced to start doing it, but for many people who've been unemployed for 10-20 years+ they just don't have the capabilities to start doing it immediately no matter how much they're threatened or even if you stopped their benefits completely. A lot of the people we're talking about don't even have the basic social skills to get along with the neighbours, let alone be polite to customers in any job they'd have. Many people on benefits will have mental health problems aswell (most likely a far greater proportion than people think, since most health professionals think mental health problems are massively under-diagnosed and under-reported).

 

If these politicians were really interested in helping people on benefits (rather than just chasing cheap Daily Mail headlines) they would allow people who've never had a job to do unpaid voluntary work for a while (while still claiming benefits), since that gets people to slowly build up some sense of self-confidence and get into a regular more healthy routine, without the pressure of a "proper" job. In addition to investing in the type of social training, counselling, etc., that would be needed to get people in condition to hold down a job (on top of the technical/educational training), though frankly that would cost a lot more money in the short run than just paying out benefits.

Edited June 20, 201411 yr by Danny

LabourList's 'below the line' lot are about as representative of the average Labour voter as the Telegraph's 'below the line' lot are of the average Tory voter. And the difference is that the Tories would just cut off welfare for under 25s full stop - there's no plan at all on their part to help under 25s get the skills and the training to help them into work.

 

Covering the costs of training/further education for those under 25 isn't that much of an expenditure in the grand scheme of things (I'd be surprised if it was above a billion). As I said, I'd much rather the means testing element were scrapped full stop, although it's quibbling at the margins to act as if we're suddenly going to have a torrent of silver-spooned 21 year olds begging on the streets because none out of mummy, daddy and the state will support them. The vast majority of people in that position will have managed to make something of the opportunities and privileges they have been given. The vast majority of those that haven't will be supported by their parents. And those that don't get any support from their parents will in likelihood be able to apply for independent status, as they are with many other forms of government support (it used to be the case with EMA, for one).

 

It's both unaffordable and massively inefficient for the state to pay for everyone to have a job, but there's a massive, massive difference between paying for 3 million people to have a job and paying for the 18-25 year olds out of work for six months to have a job.

LabourList's 'below the line' lot are about as representative of the average Labour voter as the Telegraph's 'below the line' lot are of the average Tory voter..

 

They might not be representative of the average Labour voter, but they are of the average activist (as one extremely highly-rated comment said, Jon Cruddas's reprehensible article is something he feels he should actively fight against rather than campaign for). How do you think Labour have a cat's chance in hell, with the Tories having such a huge money and press advantage, if Labour activists feel their party's manifesto is about as appealing as a "flatulent dog in a lift" ( Jeremy Paxman) and completely uninterested in promoting it?

 

I wouldn't even say they're that representative of the average activist. Most of the members I work with have fairly left-wing views but aren't Red Labour monomaniacal astroturfers who pledge to 'never deliver another leaflet with Ed's face on it again' after things like Sungate.

The Tories have always been better than Labour at implementing policies which work to the advantage of their core voters. Labour often seem to shy away from doing so. The Tories are also better at introducing policies which will be hard to reverse. There is also an increasing tendency - with all parties - to go for simple policies which are easy to explain rather than more complex policies even if the latter are far more likely to work. There has always been a certain element of anti-intellectualism in this country but it seems to be getting worse so policies which have had a lot of thought devoted to them get dismissed.

 

This reluctance to come up with policies which are harder to explain is perhaps why Labour shy away from proposing to limit tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate. So here's a nice simple way of explaining it - "If you are a basic rate taxpayer it will cost you £800 to add £1,000 to your pension pot. The state will pay the rest. If you are a top rate taxpayer it will cost you just £550 and the state will pay the remaining £450. If you think that is unfair, vote Labour". They did finally propose to restrict tax relief to the basic rate shortly before they left office but they didn't actually implement it with immediate effect. If they had done so, it would have been hard for Osborne to justify reversing it.

Don't you ever get tired of dancing on the head of a pin, trying to pick out some microscopic difference between Labour's various policies and the evil Tories' to try and convince that it's somehow better and "fairer"? :lol: One look at Labourlist will tell you that activists are not willing to do it.

Well, less than a third of them in the end that was. Like I said, the loudest below the line ranters aren't as representative of the average member as most people think.

 

http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Untitled1-500x294.png

 

(the above's a poll on whether Labour members agree with the policy, for those lost. behead those who insult good graph etiquette)

Well, less than a third of them in the end that was. Like I said, the loudest below the line ranters aren't as representative of the average member as most people think.

 

http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Untitled1-500x294.png

 

(the above's a poll on whether Labour members agree with the policy, for those lost. behead those who insult good graph etiquette)

 

Source?

 

And "somewhat agreeing" does not exactly indicate those people are going to be so enthusiastic about that they will be willing to go out and promote it.

Edited June 27, 201411 yr by Danny

LabourList. I think it was a YouGov poll of members.

 

Most members aren't enthusiastic enough to go out and promote Labour, full stop - that's always been the case, even in the 80s and the 90s. The key thing is that someone isn't going to stop just because they 'somewhat agree' with a policy, and even those who strongly disagree aren't giving up, because they realise there's more to a Labour government than one policy they don't like.