Posts
Friday, 8 October 2010
Thursday, 7 October 2010
How to win back the south.
It's a fact that Labour did awful in the south in the 2010 election.
Liam Byrne, of whom i'm a big fan, has some harsh facts. Some others have been added:
At the 2010 general election, Labour suffered its worst losses in the south and middle of England, winning just 49 out of 302 seats in those regions. Choose your route carefully, says Liam Byrne, a former Treasury minister, and you can drive from Edmonton in north London to the banks of the Humber at Grimsby before hitting a Labour seat. After this wipeout, Policy Network, a think-tank, commissioned a poll of southern voters. It found they trusted the Conservatives to run the economy by a margin of 44% to 16% over Labour. Most damningly, 47% of southerners thought public spending under Labour had been largely wasted. Such voters no longer see Labour as “fair” to working families, calling it a party for benefit claimants, unions and immigrants.
And that's a problem. Of course, these people tend to read the tabloids, which have these very headlines and stories every day and, as far as i'm concerned are not always tight with the truth.
But that's the story people believe, even if I don't. My mum, dyed in the wool Thatcherite, even believes that hospitals and the like are much, much better under Labour and that the money was well spent. Far, far too few agree with her for us (Labour) to win the kind of southern voters we need to form a government.
The crunchiest debates in Manchester involved the survivors of Labour’s southern wipeout. In fringe meetings far from the fuchsia-pink main stage they shared tales of doorstep rage from voters convinced that Labour largesse had passed them by. Mr Byrne, a Birmingham MP, quoted couples who told him they worked crushing hours, paid their dues, but earned just too much to receive state help—then pointed with rage to feckless neighbours “doing nothing and getting everything”. Such voters feel they are the victims of overlapping systems of selfishness, said Mr Byrne: above them, bankers and politicians looking after themselves; below them the work-shy or newly arrived immigrants tapping benefits. Fiona Mactaggart, a formidable Scot who represents Slough—one of Labour’s tiny clutch of Home Counties seats—put it pithily: voters thought Labour stood for “taking their money and giving it to people who are taking the piss”.
Ed Miliband says he gets it, but does he? And will people believe him. I always think it's better to avoid sayings like 'I get it' and make statements which show it.
Liam Byrne, of whom i'm a big fan, has some harsh facts. Some others have been added:
At the 2010 general election, Labour suffered its worst losses in the south and middle of England, winning just 49 out of 302 seats in those regions. Choose your route carefully, says Liam Byrne, a former Treasury minister, and you can drive from Edmonton in north London to the banks of the Humber at Grimsby before hitting a Labour seat. After this wipeout, Policy Network, a think-tank, commissioned a poll of southern voters. It found they trusted the Conservatives to run the economy by a margin of 44% to 16% over Labour. Most damningly, 47% of southerners thought public spending under Labour had been largely wasted. Such voters no longer see Labour as “fair” to working families, calling it a party for benefit claimants, unions and immigrants.
And that's a problem. Of course, these people tend to read the tabloids, which have these very headlines and stories every day and, as far as i'm concerned are not always tight with the truth.
But that's the story people believe, even if I don't. My mum, dyed in the wool Thatcherite, even believes that hospitals and the like are much, much better under Labour and that the money was well spent. Far, far too few agree with her for us (Labour) to win the kind of southern voters we need to form a government.
The crunchiest debates in Manchester involved the survivors of Labour’s southern wipeout. In fringe meetings far from the fuchsia-pink main stage they shared tales of doorstep rage from voters convinced that Labour largesse had passed them by. Mr Byrne, a Birmingham MP, quoted couples who told him they worked crushing hours, paid their dues, but earned just too much to receive state help—then pointed with rage to feckless neighbours “doing nothing and getting everything”. Such voters feel they are the victims of overlapping systems of selfishness, said Mr Byrne: above them, bankers and politicians looking after themselves; below them the work-shy or newly arrived immigrants tapping benefits. Fiona Mactaggart, a formidable Scot who represents Slough—one of Labour’s tiny clutch of Home Counties seats—put it pithily: voters thought Labour stood for “taking their money and giving it to people who are taking the piss”.
Ed Miliband says he gets it, but does he? And will people believe him. I always think it's better to avoid sayings like 'I get it' and make statements which show it.
George Osborne: good cop and bad cop in one
as a socialist, i find myself in the odd position of agreeing with the boy george on these.
i don't think people should earn more on benefits than in work. but not everyone on benefits made a "lifestyle choice" to be so. I was put out of work by the boy george's very first cuts after the election and, try as i might, the private sector has not ridden to my aid on its shiny white horse. too little experience for my target job, "overqualified" to take just anything. but yeah, work should pay more than not working.
also, the poor should not subsidise the rich, the rich should help out the poor and needy. it's just a shame that the boy george's policies are not laying a finger on the rich while making plenty poorer
i don't think people should earn more on benefits than in work. but not everyone on benefits made a "lifestyle choice" to be so. I was put out of work by the boy george's very first cuts after the election and, try as i might, the private sector has not ridden to my aid on its shiny white horse. too little experience for my target job, "overqualified" to take just anything. but yeah, work should pay more than not working.
also, the poor should not subsidise the rich, the rich should help out the poor and needy. it's just a shame that the boy george's policies are not laying a finger on the rich while making plenty poorer
Which government takes the biggest bite out of an income of $100,000?
tax rates across the world:
we have lower tax rates in this country than Croatia, Hungary, India, Germany, France and Turkey but higher than Brazil, Mexico, Japan, China, USA, Pakistand, South Korea, Switzerland, Russia and Bahamas according the The Economist and KPMG.
I feel pretty relaxed about that i do
we have lower tax rates in this country than Croatia, Hungary, India, Germany, France and Turkey but higher than Brazil, Mexico, Japan, China, USA, Pakistand, South Korea, Switzerland, Russia and Bahamas according the The Economist and KPMG.
I feel pretty relaxed about that i do
Monday, 4 October 2010
some thoughts on economics
right, i oppose the Tories' economic policy.
how would i fund my alternatives, is what it comes down to.
1) windfall tax on banks and financial services
2) NI cut
3) income tax rise at the top
people must be in work, the deficit will go down if the economy grows. the structural deficit needs to go, but a huge part of the whole is due to bailing out the banks who should really pay it back.
i'd like some thoughts on this, but i won't hold my breath
how would i fund my alternatives, is what it comes down to.
1) windfall tax on banks and financial services
2) NI cut
3) income tax rise at the top
people must be in work, the deficit will go down if the economy grows. the structural deficit needs to go, but a huge part of the whole is due to bailing out the banks who should really pay it back.
i'd like some thoughts on this, but i won't hold my breath
my worst time of year
i hate having to sit through Tory conference at the best of times, but with these smug hypocritical bastards In Government (!, looking at you Clegg) they are unbearable. Quote of the day: "Conservative party traditionalists tell the chancellor his benefit cut for high earners could discourage marriage and hit middle-class single mothers". Now i thought they were against single mothers, but apparently it's only poor ones. Middle class single mothers are to be defended. Hypocrites
today's benefit reforms
i agree that people should be better off in work than on benefits.
however, AxeMan Osborne does not give me any confidence he will do anything other than attack the poor and vulnerable.
anyone who thinks his measures are not ideological are mental. they must be pretty grateful for the Lib Dems to take much of the fire for them from both sides.
ideally, wages should be of a level that means people are decently off in work, but there's in work poverty as well as benefit affluence.
Update: "A government source has just told Nick Robinson that the chancellor's benefits cap is more a "symbol" than a policy whose implications have been fully worked out and will produce real savings. "
oh there's a surprise
however, AxeMan Osborne does not give me any confidence he will do anything other than attack the poor and vulnerable.
anyone who thinks his measures are not ideological are mental. they must be pretty grateful for the Lib Dems to take much of the fire for them from both sides.
ideally, wages should be of a level that means people are decently off in work, but there's in work poverty as well as benefit affluence.
Update: "A government source has just told Nick Robinson that the chancellor's benefits cap is more a "symbol" than a policy whose implications have been fully worked out and will produce real savings. "
oh there's a surprise
today's Tory proposals
i woke up this morning to Tory proposals to cut benefits and all but out law strikes.
i don't have a problem with the cut to 'universal' benefits. benefits should go to those most ni need, and i'm afraid top-rate tax payers are not most in need so, given the current financial position, it seems fair enough.
on restricting strikes, i think it's a tactic to back Ed Miliband into a corner
i don't have a problem with the cut to 'universal' benefits. benefits should go to those most ni need, and i'm afraid top-rate tax payers are not most in need so, given the current financial position, it seems fair enough.
on restricting strikes, i think it's a tactic to back Ed Miliband into a corner
Friday, 1 October 2010
Ed Miliband: not red, but definitely of the left
bloody ell, i know The Economist has a righty bias, but can't we have slightly more objective analysis, please?
'Ed' is certainly not 'Red', but neither should he be handing down party policy from on high 72 hours after becoming leader.
Sadly, the job of leaders is to make warm fluffy noises that enough people don't object to.
on wages and the like, should he really be looking so short term that he trips over his own feet, or should he set out his vision for the longer term? This country cannot compete on low costs, it has to do so on high-end and quality produce which means wages and Ts & Cs.
and is it not immoral that care workers are paid so poorly?
'Ed' is certainly not 'Red', but neither should he be handing down party policy from on high 72 hours after becoming leader.
Sadly, the job of leaders is to make warm fluffy noises that enough people don't object to.
on wages and the like, should he really be looking so short term that he trips over his own feet, or should he set out his vision for the longer term? This country cannot compete on low costs, it has to do so on high-end and quality produce which means wages and Ts & Cs.
and is it not immoral that care workers are paid so poorly?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
