We're not helped by most policy announcements coming in the last six months. It's notoriously difficult anyway for opposition to be heard (can anyone remember anything Cameron pledged a year out from 2010?) and it certainly takes time for proposals to make an impact.

 

No - and that's probably why they failed to win a majority despite such fortunate circumstances.

Edited June 11, 201411 yr by Danny

I don't actually disagree with this, but I'm guessing we'd differ on what "radical" is. I don't consider the type of policies I'd want to be "radical" at all, even if they were moreso than Labour's current timid policies; like I said earlier virtually everything I'd want probably would've been in an SDP manifesto.

 

But what I was getting at was your comment that Labour are promoting "state intervention into markets" and other past comments, to mean that YOU truly think Labour's current policies are radical. And there were some Labour spokespeople, on the day after the elections last month, who when told that many Labour supporters had defected to UKIP because they thought "all the main parties are the same", looked totally nonplussed and claimed that there was a huge gap between the Tories' current policies and Labour's current policies. I'm sorry, but it's just not the public perception that Labour are offering something drastically different to the current government. At all.

 

(Plus, goes without saying, I completely disagree that people fear Labour would go on a "spending spree", and there is certainly no opinion poll evidence to back up the view that people fear Labour would overspend...)

Labour's current policies are pretty radical - having the government intervene in areas like energy and private rents has been totally off the board for the last 30, 40 years in British politics. By any standard, that's a radical move. If anything Labour faces two big problems - a. that people don't know about these policies, and b. where they do know them, a lot don't believe that we'll actually be able to do them. Radicalism isn't worth much if people don't think you're capable of actually bringing it to bear. The credibility gap and the lack of awareness are two of the big problems we face now. And in any case, it doesn't mean our policies aren't radical just because public perception (likely based on a lack of belief or a lack of information) isn't that we're offering something different to the current government - by that logic benefits must be runaway and immigrants make up a third of the population.

 

We can do something about the lack of awareness, and we can probably do something about the credibility gap, although it's not something that has an easy answer. It would have to be something that totally went against the grain of what's expected of Ed though (and I don't necessarily mean that in the way that you'd think), in order to actually persuade people that Ed is capable of bringing about the change he's after. Christ knows why having the guts to stand up to his brother wasn't enough to show that, but hey ho.

 

The latter is based more on anecdotal evidence from asking a lot of undecideds who used to vote Labour why they won't back us ('it'll be like the last government, you'll just spend all the money again/let more immigrants in/let people carry on taking the piss with benefits'), but the main reason there isn't any opinion poll evidence is probably as it's not a question that's been asked off the top of my head.

No - and that's probably why they failed to win a majority despite such fortunate circumstances.

I think the pledge to cut the deficit and not the NHS is remembered (albeit for some of the wrong reasons). The big problem was that the Tories couldn't win over the moderate people in the centre who didn't believe the Tories had changed because by zipping back to form after the financial crisis they cut across all the detoxification Cameron had attempted in his first couple of years - and so the last few years have proved. There's a sizeable group of those people, who in all likelihood voted Lib Dem last time, but who don't trust the Lib Dems, don't really trust Labour yet after the last government, and who really don't trust the Tories after this government (although 'shifting baseline' theory might make a few of them think that actually, it's not as bad as they thought a Tory government would be, which would be worrying if so). It's difficult to know where most of them will go. I'm hoping they're the sort who sat out the Euros and the last few elections but who'll default to us as the least worst option in their minds next year, but I'm a little worried a lot might just not vote at all.

The madness is that despite all this, unemployment figures still show a disproportionate number of young people out of work. What does that tell you?

 

tells me its just the same as the 80's when i was the one on the dole for 2 years. At the risk of stating a fact as if it's a political point-scoring (it's not) but current young people have advantages like the net to look for work. It's awful, and as I said it's cheaper to pay a young person peanuts than it is someone with a family, but also as Ive said before to be attractive to employers you take anything at all at any wage. Temporary jobs, anything, sitting at home waiting for politicians to save you is not an answer, trust me - unless like Labour are saying they will target youth unemployment (hopefully by putting them in the actual workplace, the co-op get grants for taking on otherwise unemployable staff, so I don't see why other companies can't do the same for more employable young people).

But the benefit cuts are chicken feed compared with the deficit. They are all about politics and winning votes, nothing to do with cutting the deficit.

 

Most of the benefits bill goes to pensioners who are unaffected by the cuts. Most of the rest goes to people IN work. Most of the children defined as living in poverty are in households were at least one parent is in work. As I've said before, if anyone deserves the label "benefit scroungers" it is the major companies paying their staff so little that their income needs to be supplemented by the state. To make matters worse, some of those same companies pay next to no tax so they are not even paying for that top-up.

 

True enough. Pensioners bill, yes (though the actual amount they get per person is also not much more than a someone looking for work, it's the NHS costs etc that are the bigger ones, plus TV licence free etc). In terms of paying decent wages, that's a lovely idea but of course you can only pay staff more if it doesn't put the company or country out of business through bankruptcy. It's a world economy and you have to compete or stay completely self-sufficient (which the UK is not).

 

Not everyone out of work is a benefit scrounger. A fair proportion are though. I'm not judging anyone for deciding never to work and live off benefits (as several of my family and friends have), just saying it's a fact of life and if someone can get 1900 pound a month for not working (that's a good wage!) what's the motivation to change their mind? Why not issue food tokens, clothing tokens, beds, free school meals (I had free school meals as a child) for the kids, pay the rent direct, and make the parents work for their fags, widescreen TV's, mobile contracts and other luxury items which are somehow regarded as necessities the state should pay for. Libraries provide free internet for looking for work and other stuff, books newspapers...

 

and I agree with the comments about the struggling families are the one's in work, especially one-parent families. that's spot on - so why does it surprise anyone that the low-paid are pretty pissed off that people not working get more than they are working for. This applies to local government (tax-payer low-paid) staff as much as anyone else, except that the people who sign over the cash to benefit applicants know exactly how much they get, who's really needy (and there are plenty) and who's using the system to their advantage quite successfully.

Edited June 11, 201411 yr by popchartfreak

True enough. Pensioners bill, yes (though the actual amount they get per person is also not much more than a someone looking for work, it's the NHS costs etc that are the bigger ones, plus TV licence free etc). In terms of paying decent wages, that's a lovely idea but of course you can only pay staff more if it doesn't put the company or country out of business through bankruptcy. It's a world economy and you have to compete or stay completely self-sufficient (which the UK is not).

My anger is directed at companies such as Starbucks and Amazon who pay their staff a pittance, make massive profits in there UK but pay almost no tax. They are not going to be bankrupted if they start paying a decent wage. A branch manager at Starbucks gets less - in absolute terms - than my brother-out-law (if that's the right term when he and my sister are not married) was paid to run a record shop over 20 years ago.

My anger is directed at companies such as Starbucks and Amazon who pay their staff a pittance, make massive profits in there UK but pay almost no tax. They are not going to be bankrupted if they start paying a decent wage. A branch manager at Starbucks gets less - in absolute terms - than my brother-out-law (if that's the right term when he and my sister are not married) was paid to run a record shop over 20 years ago.

 

and I entirely agree about tax-dodging mega-corporations, screw the lot of 'em I say and I'd vote for any party with the guts to take them on. That should help the UK income a bit...!

Labour's current policies are pretty radical - having the government intervene in areas like energy and private rents has been totally off the board for the last 30, 40 years in British politics. By any standard, that's a radical move. If anything Labour faces two big problems - a. that people don't know about these policies, and b. where they do know them, a lot don't believe that we'll actually be able to do them. Radicalism isn't worth much if people don't think you're capable of actually bringing it to bear. The credibility gap and the lack of awareness are two of the big problems we face now. And in any case, it doesn't mean our policies aren't radical just because public perception (likely based on a lack of belief or a lack of information) isn't that we're offering something different to the current government - by that logic benefits must be runaway and immigrants make up a third of the population.

 

Point B is definitely right -- even people who are aware of Labour's policies just don't believe they're being truthful. But that has nothing to do with people thinking "Labour will bankrupt us!!!!11", it's just because people think politicians are flat-out liars. And, trivial as it may sound, I still maintain that Labour spokespeople's habits of parrotting their policies in Blair-like formulaic cheesy soundbites is exacerbating the problem -- even though I think "charisma" in itself is overrated in politics, the way Labour do that makes people think they're not actually being sincere in what they're saying. Basically, too often they give the impression of being sleazy estate agents desperately saying anything to try and get a sale, so people end up just not taking anything they say seriously (even if on the surface what they're saying might be popular). I don't know whether their insistence on still clinging to the same form of speaking and "messaging" is because they're genuinely unaware of what reactions it brings in people, or if they are aware but are simply incapable of communicating in any other way (in which case there's really no alternative but to change the messengers).

Edited June 11, 201411 yr by Danny

I think it falls into two parts - some who think we won't do it, but a lot more who think we won't be able to do it.

 

The 'on message' mode and way of speaking in forgettable soundbites really is incredibly hackneyed by now though. I think it's a big part of the reason for UKIP's rise.

True enough. Pensioners bill, yes (though the actual amount they get per person is also not much more than a someone looking for work, it's the NHS costs etc that are the bigger ones, plus TV licence free etc). In terms of paying decent wages, that's a lovely idea but of course you can only pay staff more if it doesn't put the company or country out of business through bankruptcy. It's a world economy and you have to compete or stay completely self-sufficient (which the UK is not).

 

Not everyone out of work is a benefit scrounger. A fair proportion are though. I'm not judging anyone for deciding never to work and live off benefits (as several of my family and friends have), just saying it's a fact of life and if someone can get 1900 pound a month for not working (that's a good wage!) what's the motivation to change their mind? Why not issue food tokens, clothing tokens, beds, free school meals (I had free school meals as a child) for the kids, pay the rent direct, and make the parents work for their fags, widescreen TV's, mobile contracts and other luxury items which are somehow regarded as necessities the state should pay for. Libraries provide free internet for looking for work and other stuff, books newspapers...

 

and I agree with the comments about the struggling families are the one's in work, especially one-parent families. that's spot on - so why does it surprise anyone that the low-paid are pretty pissed off that people not working get more than they are working for. This applies to local government (tax-payer low-paid) staff as much as anyone else, except that the people who sign over the cash to benefit applicants know exactly how much they get, who's really needy (and there are plenty) and who's using the system to their advantage quite successfully.

What do you define as a "fair proportion" of people on welfare claiming it unfairly?

Is it me or does every thread these days turn into me vs Danny and Charlie vs popchartfreak with Suedehead playing referee? :D

 

I miss Craig NO

What do you define as a "fair proportion" of people on welfare claiming it unfairly?

 

I mean exactly 35.3357%.

 

Sheesh! How on earth do you get figures to define something that by definition is unanswerable? Anyone that would answer a survey "yes I take the piss and I have no intention of working" will lose their benefits. They are VERY protective of those benefits and not stupid...

 

Enough of a proportion that people who live in the real world know plenty of people who do it, and that's why they are peed off at it going on. just go for a walk round a council estate and chat to people (or indeed middle-class estates, cos I know professional long-term unemployed people who won't even contemplate taking a job for less than 35k. "It's not worth my while". I do not kid.....).

 

I'm afraid popular opinion and personal anecdotal evidence is all I can offer...and equally that's all that is available to refute. Damn! :o

Edited June 12, 201411 yr by popchartfreak

I mean exactly 35.3357%.

 

Sheesh! How on earth do you get figures to define something that by definition is unanswerable? Anyone that would answer a survey "yes I take the piss and I have no intention of working" will lose their benefits. They are VERY protective of those benefits and not stupid...

 

Enough of a proportion that people who live in the real world know plenty of people who do it, and that's why they are peed off at it going on. just go for a walk round a council estate and chat to people (or indeed middle-class estates, cos I know professional long-term unemployed people who won't even contemplate taking a job for less than 35k. "It's not worth my while". I do not kid.....).

 

I'm afraid popular opinion and personal anecdotal evidence is all I can offer...and equally that's all that is available to refute. Damn! :o

So it's anecdotal evidence against stats which state (albeit probably slightly underestimating) that 0.7% is claimed fradulently. Oops.

So it's anecdotal evidence against stats which state (albeit probably slightly underestimating) that 0.7% is claimed fradulently. Oops.

 

define fraudulently...as you might well ask?

 

what stats? Based on what exactly? The people on benefits "Are you fraudulently claiming benefits, tick yes or no"? Are these official figures for those caught cheating rather than thought to be? Cos everyone I know doing it is not caught (and in any case it's not necessarily fraudulent, it's using the system to your own benefit, not quite the same thing at all), being as there are no council staff available to properly investigate.... council employees can barely keep up with crucial day to day stuff these days)

 

 

I love that you have such trust in human nature that you think people are going to admit to claiming benefits fraudulently or that government statistics actually mean that much...! That's very laudable!

 

I'm afraid I'm much more cycnical about both (though we are generally both striving for what is decent and right). I see what one council's spin is on the basic information handed out, I see what consultants do (eg provide evidence to support policial ambition, not provide independant unbiased advice - as per un-named council who signed up to a bankrupt private company, having sacked the individual responsible who warned of this - as per his job spec - because consultants had shown they were robust, and were paid large sums of money for this marvellous "advice"). Whistle-blowers get sacked, by the way, for revealing what politicians are doing, it's in our contract not to speak to the media and not to reveal "confidential" information.

define fraudulently...as you might well ask?

 

what stats? Based on what exactly? The people on benefits "Are you fraudulently claiming benefits, tick yes or no"? Are these official figures for those caught cheating rather than thought to be? Cos everyone I know doing it is not caught (and in any case it's not necessarily fraudulent, it's using the system to your own benefit, not quite the same thing at all), being as there are no council staff available to properly investigate.... council employees can barely keep up with crucial day to day stuff these days)

I love that you have such trust in human nature that you think people are going to admit to claiming benefits fraudulently or that government statistics actually mean that much...! That's very laudable!

 

I'm afraid I'm much more cycnical about both (though we are generally both striving for what is decent and right). I see what one council's spin is on the basic information handed out, I see what consultants do (eg provide evidence to support policial ambition, not provide independant unbiased advice - as per un-named council who signed up to a bankrupt private company, having sacked the individual responsible who warned of this - as per his job spec - because consultants had shown they were robust, and were paid large sums of money for this marvellous "advice"). Whistle-blowers get sacked, by the way, for revealing what politicians are doing, it's in our contract not to speak to the media and not to reveal "confidential" information.

Still anecdotal. Lovely of you to write so much though.

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%.

And the strategy of alienating traditional voters for no reason whatsoever continues apace:

 

 

http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Miliband-The-Sun-346x500.png

Edited June 13, 201411 yr by Danny

Shock horror, the leader of the Labour Party holds a copy of The Sun, how dare the leader of Labour have anything to do with that paper. It's not as if any former Labour leaders, you know, metaphorically got into bed with the owner of said paper for 10 years. Probably the only time I've ever felt sorry for Ed Milliband, this story seems to have been blown out of proportion.

Shock horror, the leader of the Labour Party holds a copy of The Sun, how dare the leader of Labour have anything to do with that paper. It's not as if any former Labour leaders, you know, metaphorically got into bed with the owner of said paper for 10 years. Probably the only time I've ever felt sorry for Ed Milliband, this story seems to have been blown out of proportion.

His staff should have known that the paper was going to be delivered almost everywhere apart from Liverpool. That should have rung some alarm bells. Similarly, I would have preferred to see a blank box with the caption: Nick Clegg told us "Of course I will be supporting England but I can do that without being seen with a copy of your paper".

And the strategy of alienating traditional voters for no reason whatsoever continues apace:

http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Miliband-The-Sun-346x500.png

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.