The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Because part of their work is interacting with the public (as a contrast, the Metropolitan Police's Directorate of Media and Communication currently has just over 90 staff).
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Because part of their work is interacting with the public (as a contrast, the Metropolitan Police's Directorate of Media and Communication currently has just over 90 staff).
Exactly - ‘organisation has press office and photographers, which will extensively feature their boss’ is not a gotcha.
Though here I’m leaping to the defence of MHCLG (or whatever they’ve decided the new abbreviation is for the new name for the department) rather than their boss.
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Presumably so people are informed about what it is actually doing and are less susceptible to misinformed or deliberately misleading stories spread by the Daily Mail and GB "News".
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Presumably so people are informed about what it is actually doing and are less susceptible to misinformed or deliberately misleading stories spread by the Daily Mail and GB "News".
A middle class myth.
Given that you've just credulously repeated claims that Rayner spent public money on a personal photographer it's fairly clearly not a myth, middle class or otherwise (not that you can get much more middle class than the Mail).
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Presumably so people are informed about what it is actually doing and are less susceptible to misinformed or deliberately misleading stories spread by the Daily Mail and GB "News".
A middle class myth.
It is neither middle class nor a myth. It is also not new.
Here's a poll from 2012:
1. On average people think that 41% per cent of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people.
2. On average people think that 27% per cent of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently.
3. On average people think that almost half the people who claim Jobseeker's Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year,
4. On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker's Allowance
5. Only 21% people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job.
So let's take those one by one (2012 figures):
1. How much of the welfare budget goes on unemployment benefit? 41%? No. 3%.
2. What is the proportion of the benefit budget lost to fraud? 0.7%
3. How many people receiving Jobseeker's Allowance are claimants for more than a year? Half? Nope. A tenth.
4. How much was the benefit for that couple? £147? Nope. That's a 30% overestimate.
5. This couple would've been over £100 per week better off in one parent took a part time job.
So, there is actual data that shows that people believe the incorrect information pushed by certain newspapers. Primarily the Mail and Express are responsible here. And now GBNews
Let's just be clear. This is not opinion, this is mathematics. These papers publish factually inaccurately information and a large proportion of the population absorb it without necessarily realising.
Propaganda works.
A wise man once said, you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. Whilst I believe he meant it very specifically. I also believe he meant it generally.
We live and move in a mass media environment in which misinformation is everywhere.
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Presumably so people are informed about what it is actually doing and are less susceptible to misinformed or deliberately misleading stories spread by the Daily Mail and GB "News".
A middle class myth.
It is neither middle class nor a myth. It is also not new.
Here's a poll from 2012:
1. On average people think that 41% per cent of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people.
2. On average people think that 27% per cent of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently.
3. On average people think that almost half the people who claim Jobseeker's Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year,
4. On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker's Allowance
5. Only 21% people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job.
So let's take those one by one (2012 figures):
1. How much of the welfare budget goes on unemployment benefit? 41%? No. 3%.
2. What is the proportion of the benefit budget lost to fraud? 0.7%
3. How many people receiving Jobseeker's Allowance are claimants for more than a year? Half? Nope. A tenth.
4. How much was the benefit for that couple? £147? Nope. That's a 30% overestimate.
5. This couple would've been over £100 per week better off in one parent took a part time job.
So, there is actual data that shows that people believe the incorrect information pushed by certain newspapers. Primarily the Mail and Express are responsible here. And now GBNews
Let's just be clear. This is not opinion, this is mathematics. These papers publish factually inaccurately information and a large proportion of the population absorb it without necessarily realising.
Propaganda works.
A wise man once said, you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. Whilst I believe he meant it very specifically. I also believe he meant it generally.
We live and move in a mass media environment in which misinformation is everywhere.
AFZ
Before we go any further, I agree with you in terms of what you're saying, but (there's always a but...). I'm not sure why I'm doing this except I've lost my job and in the middle of applications to a million other places I've got time on my hands...
A sometime research professional writes:
That's all true as far as it goes, except that a decent critical thinker will look at the sources of everything that they are reading. Tbh, and here we're back to optics, if I was looking to topedo the views of those who have absorbed everything they are told by the tabloid press I'd think twice about citing research by the TUC.
I've got no doubt that the conclusions are broadly right (so I'm not arguing with the substance). YouGov are members of the British Polling Council and are, despite what the conspiracists say, totally reputable.
However. The TUC have got an agenda. They basically wanted to find what they found (otherwise they wouldn't have published the research that they paid for - the industry is littered with the smoking carcasses of reports where the client ends up saying 'oh. well that's not helpful' and puts them on a shelf in a cellar somewhere). And good researchers will, where possible, help their client to tell the story they want if the facts can support it.
If we think about the Scottish Referendum, and all the debate about the exact question that was going to be asked - you've got that here over probably about 30 questions (plus sub questions and routing, when I've really got time I'll see if there's a link to the survey itself but often those are kept confidential for exactly this reason). It's so dependent on what was asked and how it was asked. YouGov will have done it within the boundaries of a good survey - again, they are professionals - but that still leaves room for choices around language and wording.
What I'm saying is essentially you can price in what the tabloids will say, and unfortunately (especially for the tabloid audience) you can price in what the TUC will say. So 'well the TUC says this' is in this case more likely to be right, but still needs to be read through the lens of who they are and what their agenda is. I wouldn't want to use their numbers to fight this fire is what it comes down to - exactly the same numbers from a different source would be infinitely preferable, and I'm sure will exist somewhere.
Again, I'm arguing with the messenger here rather than the message.
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Presumably so people are informed about what it is actually doing and are less susceptible to misinformed or deliberately misleading stories spread by the Daily Mail and GB "News".
A middle class myth.
It is neither middle class nor a myth. It is also not new.
Here's a poll from 2012:
1. On average people think that 41% per cent of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people.
2. On average people think that 27% per cent of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently.
3. On average people think that almost half the people who claim Jobseeker's Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year,
4. On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker's Allowance
5. Only 21% people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job.
So let's take those one by one (2012 figures):
1. How much of the welfare budget goes on unemployment benefit? 41%? No. 3%.
2. What is the proportion of the benefit budget lost to fraud? 0.7%
3. How many people receiving Jobseeker's Allowance are claimants for more than a year? Half? Nope. A tenth.
4. How much was the benefit for that couple? £147? Nope. That's a 30% overestimate.
5. This couple would've been over £100 per week better off in one parent took a part time job.
So, there is actual data that shows that people believe the incorrect information pushed by certain newspapers. Primarily the Mail and Express are responsible here. And now GBNews
Let's just be clear. This is not opinion, this is mathematics. These papers publish factually inaccurately information and a large proportion of the population absorb it without necessarily realising.
Propaganda works.
A wise man once said, you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. Whilst I believe he meant it very specifically. I also believe he meant it generally.
We live and move in a mass media environment in which misinformation is everywhere.
AFZ
Before we go any further, I agree with you in terms of what you're saying, but (there's always a but...). I'm not sure why I'm doing this except I've lost my job and in the middle of applications to a million other places I've got time on my hands...
A sometime research professional writes:
That's all true as far as it goes, except that a decent critical thinker will look at the sources of everything that they are reading. Tbh, and here we're back to optics, if I was looking to topedo the views of those who have absorbed everything they are told by the tabloid press I'd think twice about citing research by the TUC.
I've got no doubt that the conclusions are broadly right (so I'm not arguing with the substance). YouGov are members of the British Polling Council and are, despite what the conspiracists say, totally reputable.
However. The TUC have got an agenda. They basically wanted to find what they found (otherwise they wouldn't have published the research that they paid for - the industry is littered with the smoking carcasses of reports where the client ends up saying 'oh. well that's not helpful' and puts them on a shelf in a cellar somewhere). And good researchers will, where possible, help their client to tell the story they want if the facts can support it.
If we think about the Scottish Referendum, and all the debate about the exact question that was going to be asked - you've got that here over probably about 30 questions (plus sub questions and routing, when I've really got time I'll see if there's a link to the survey itself but often those are kept confidential for exactly this reason). It's so dependent on what was asked and how it was asked. YouGov will have done it within the boundaries of a good survey - again, they are professionals - but that still leaves room for choices around language and wording.
What I'm saying is essentially you can price in what the tabloids will say, and unfortunately (especially for the tabloid audience) you can price in what the TUC will say. So 'well the TUC says this' is in this case more likely to be right, but still needs to be read through the lens of who they are and what their agenda is. I wouldn't want to use their numbers to fight this fire is what it comes down to - exactly the same numbers from a different source would be infinitely preferable, and I'm sure will exist somewhere.
Again, I'm arguing with the messenger here rather than the message.
Anyway, back to Guardian Jobs...
As you say. It's YouGov who ran the poll and at the time, the polling methods (i.e. the precise questions asked) and numbers were available on their website. (I don't know if they still are).
Critical thinking vs cynicism is important. I think we are in danger of fiercely agreeing.
I agree You Guv are a really good professional outfit. They run surveys for those who ask and pay them. If a client asks for a survey on a specific question worded a certain way they run it. As said up thread context is important.
I don’t read any paper. I tend to get my news from the BBC. I have to take into account their bias.
No. The government doesn't know exactly who they are, but can look other systems and estimate the number of people who may be eligible with reasonable degrees of precision.
No. The government doesn't know exactly who they are, but can look other systems and estimate the number of people who may be eligible with reasonable degrees of precision.
No. The government doesn't know exactly who they are, but can look other systems and estimate the number of people who may be eligible with reasonable degrees of precision.
They know which pensioners are paying income tax.
Right, but that's only one part of the means test, the other being savings (and whether you still have rent to pay). They can probably identify a bunch of people who are definitely not eligible but that doesn't help that much.
The Conservative government re-organised the DWP into an organisation designed to prevent anyone from getting a few quid of benefits they didn't entirely qualify for, even if that meant making it much harder for people to know what they might be entitled for (much less be able to complete increasingly complex applications or meet criteria that became increasingly difficult to assess). All in the name of preventing someone in need from getting a few more quid (but, nowhere near that attention to detail is applied to preventing people who have excess skipping paying their share of the tax burden as they shove cash overseas), and cutting the benefits bill.
It will take a fair bit of time for Labour to re-organise the DWP into an organisation that helps people get the benefits they need, including even knowing who might be entitled to a benefit they're not claiming.
The Conservative government re-organised the DWP into an organisation designed to prevent anyone from getting a few quid of benefits they didn't entirely qualify for, even if that meant making it much harder for people to know what they might be entitled for (much less be able to complete increasingly complex applications or meet criteria that became increasingly difficult to assess). All in the name of preventing someone in need from getting a few more quid (but, nowhere near that attention to detail is applied to preventing people who have excess skipping paying their share of the tax burden as they shove cash overseas), and cutting the benefits bill.
It will take a fair bit of time for Labour to re-organise the DWP into an organisation that helps people get the benefits they need, including even knowing who might be entitled to a benefit they're not claiming.
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Presumably so people are informed about what it is actually doing and are less susceptible to misinformed or deliberately misleading stories spread by the Daily Mail and GB "News".
The Conservative government re-organised the DWP into an organisation designed to prevent anyone from getting a few quid of benefits they didn't entirely qualify for, even if that meant making it much harder for people to know what they might be entitled for (much less be able to complete increasingly complex applications or meet criteria that became increasingly difficult to assess). All in the name of preventing someone in need from getting a few more quid (but, nowhere near that attention to detail is applied to preventing people who have excess skipping paying their share of the tax burden as they shove cash overseas), and cutting the benefits bill.
It will take a fair bit of time for Labour to re-organise the DWP into an organisation that helps people get the benefits they need, including even knowing who might be entitled to a benefit they're not claiming.
You're assuming that's the objective, which is by no means clear. Evidence this morning suggests ever more hostility and suspicion being cast on disabled people.
I was watching a video of Rory Sutherland yesterday. He's an advertising executive and has been doing lots of podcasts and videos recently because he is quite fun and talks 9-to-the-dozen to anyone who will listen.
One thing he was saying was that the problem with politics is that too often it is about 'winning' and scoring points rather than delivering anything meaningful. And that the skills politics promotes (primarily argumentation/rhetoric) encourages entrenched positions rather than solutions to problems. That one can be terrible in debate and bad at rhetoric but have good ideas and vice versa.
Starmer is weirdly bad at rhetoric given he's a barrister, former prosecutor and politician. He rambles on, bores the audience and stumbles over words that have only passing resemblance to the words he is trying to say in a serious tone.
I suspect that this is because he does actually have his eyes on a higher goal. In the last few weeks we've seen how the predominantly rightwing press have been able to inflate nothing into something to the extent that a big proportion of the public believe it. Objectively, pensioners who take multiple holidays a year and live in half million pound houses are not in poverty. Some of them even say openly that they use the money for a holiday deposit or give it to their children to help with their household budgets. Having to take donor money is not new in British politics. Neither of these are big news.
What the "big idea" will actually be, I don't know. I doubt it is chasing benefit fraud or having a border command or using legislation to put in pylons. But it will have to be something quite large and it will have to be put in place quickly.
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Presumably so people are informed about what it is actually doing and are less susceptible to misinformed or deliberately misleading stories spread by the Daily Mail and GB "News".
A middle class myth.
which you are busy demonstrating to be true.
I was pleasantly surprised to be listening to a random history podcast - that stated it was sponsored by the DWP and encouraged me to check with any elderly relatives that they were getting pension credit if they might be entitled. Which suggests at least some budget has been diverted to increase take-up. I’ve listen to podcasts for years - this has never happened to me before.
If all pensioners entitled to pension credit start getting it, then that's good. They'll also get WFP as well, which is better. But, I'm not optimistic that all those people will fill in the forms. And, even if they did it still leaves those who just fail to meet the pension credit criteria missing out on the WFP which they will find very useful in making ends meet.
...And Mr Starmer shoots himself in the foot again, this time over accepting use of Lord Alli's London flat so his son "could revise for his GCSEs", although it then transpired the whole family stayed there until they moved into Downing Street.
Now while I appreciate that KS was acting as a good parent there is a (perhaps selfish) little voice in my head shouting but my children had to cope with their mother dying at home in a 2 bedroomed house while they revised for and sat their 'A levels.
This is ridiculous. My parents have a house worth £350k. My children stayed with them at different times, would I have to declare the value of using it if I was PM?
My daughter studied in the university library worth tens of millions of pounds. Would I have to declare that she spent several weeks/months of her life doing her work in it?
I would assume it's assessed on rental value (£10K a month for exclusive use of a property in one of the nicer parts of Central London)
This is ridiculous. My parents have a house worth £350k. My children stayed with them at different times, would I have to declare the value of using it if I was PM?
No, because they were part of your family. You would need to do so if they had no relationship to you other than being a donor. It's fairly simple, let's not engage in performative hyperbole here.
It's no different that Johnson having to declare hospitality of this form received from Tory donors.
I would assume it's assessed on rental value (£10K a month for exclusive use of a property in one of the nicer parts of Central London)
This is ridiculous. My parents have a house worth £350k. My children stayed with them at different times, would I have to declare the value of using it if I was PM?
No, because they were part of your family. You would need to do so if they had no relationship to you other than being a donor. It's fairly simple, let's not engage in performative hyperbole here.
It's no different that Johnson having to declare hospitality of this form received from Tory donors.
It's not hyperbole. Nobody normal quantifies the cost of staying with a friend. Unless the friend is actually owns a hotel, there's no actual value there because Starmer staying there hasn't somehow prevented the owner from selling the time/space to someone else.
So staying with a friend gets you in the Daily Mail?
The DM is engaged in some stupid form of equivalence between Johnson and Starmer. Johnson spent £ridiculous on redecorating the flat at Number 10? Ah well, how much did Starmer get from a donor for his glasses?
Johnson holidays on a private island with the son of a Russian plutocrat? Ah well, Starmer borrowed a flat for a week from his friend.
It's not even vaguely the same thing. The DM is only doing it to attempt to affect the social media algorithm.
The DM is engaged in some stupid form of equivalence between Johnson and Starmer. Johnson spent £ridiculous on redecorating the flat at Number 10? Ah well, how much did Starmer get from a donor for his glasses?
So basically you want to argue amounts rather than principles.
Johnson holidays on a private island with the son of a Russian plutocrat? Ah well, Starmer borrowed a flat for a week from his friend.
He stayed there for around two months, there is no suggestion that they were friends of any standing, in fact one could easily argue - purely based on evidence in the public domain - that Johnson had more social contact with Lebedev than Starmer has had with Alli.
Starmer is weirdly bad at rhetoric given he's a barrister, former prosecutor and politician. He rambles on, bores the audience and stumbles over words that have only passing resemblance to the words he is trying to say in a serious tone.
So staying with a friend gets you in the Daily Mail?
The DM is engaged in some stupid form of equivalence between Johnson and Starmer. Johnson spent £ridiculous on redecorating the flat at Number 10? Ah well, how much did Starmer get from a donor for his glasses?
Johnson holidays on a private island with the son of a Russian plutocrat? Ah well, Starmer borrowed a flat for a week from his friend.
It's not even vaguely the same thing. The DM is only doing it to attempt to affect the social media algorithm.
Sir Keir may be holier than Johnson but it's not a big achievement
It's a well-known fact that many people eligible for various benefits do not claim them. This is for a variety of reasons. Many are put off by bureaucratic form-filling. Others refuse to claim out of pride and/or a feeling that claiming benefits is shameful. Others still do not know what benefits are available.
This is one argument for making benefits universal and using the tax system to claw back benefits from those on good incomes. (The political choice would then be one of deciding what a 'good' income was.)
However, the way things are saves governments a great deal of money. Far more, I suspect, than has ever been lost through fraud.
The DM is engaged in some stupid form of equivalence between Johnson and Starmer. Johnson spent £ridiculous on redecorating the flat at Number 10? Ah well, how much did Starmer get from a donor for his glasses?
So basically you want to argue amounts rather than principles.
No. The argument is that this is false equivalence. You may disgree but that is the argument. Otherwise you are arguing with a Strawman.
I can't help thinking that if Corbyn had made that error the papers would be earnestly questioning whether mentioning a pork product was a deliberate insult to Jewish people.
Sir Keir got a long standing ovation at Labour COnference for announcing that that Forces Veterans will be given priority for housing. He has clarified the situation to Chris Hope of GB news by explaning that they will be on the waiting list
Yes he said they will be given priority on the waiting list. Not priority of houses.
Yes the quip about the 2019 conference was bad. The young man who shouted out was removed roughly and his neck and arms were bruised. He was pick up by the police as he was taken out of the hall. Previously someone else shouted out at the conference and was arrested for disturbing the peace but let go with no charge.
This is the action of a dictatorship. Not a democracy.
Yes he said they will be given priority on the waiting list. Not priority of houses.
Yes the quip about the 2019 conference was bad. The young man who shouted out was removed roughly and his neck and arms were bruised. He was pick up by the police as he was taken out of the hall. Previously someone else shouted out at the conference and was arrested for disturbing the peace but let go with no charge.
This is the action of a dictatorship. Not a democracy.
Standard practice for (New) New Labour. I hoped we'd seen the back of the bastards but no such luck.
Yes he said they will be given priority on the waiting list. Not priority of houses.
Yes the quip about the 2019 conference was bad. The young man who shouted out was removed roughly and his neck and arms were bruised. He was pick up by the police as he was taken out of the hall. Previously someone else shouted out at the conference and was arrested for disturbing the peace but let go with no charge.
This is the action of a dictatorship. Not a democracy.
"Are there any ... in the theatre tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
That one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me.
Get him up against the wall.
And that one looks Jewish - and that one's a ...!
Who let all this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint - and another with spots!
If I had my way I'd have all of you shot!"
Pink Floyd, the Wall
Edited - decided to leave the slurs out all together. You can google the lyrics if you want.
Labour are thinking about rolling back on some non dom policies from the manifesto. They are thinking it will not raise the money they expected. The budget will be interesting.
Labour are thinking about rolling back on some non dom policies from the manifesto. They are thinking it will not raise the money they expected. The budget will be interesting.
In further evidence that they are suffering from Treasury Brain; from an article on the Transpennine Upgrade:
But as Whitehall gears up for Reeves’s first Budget, three people familiar with the process said that the project was again being looked at for potential cost savings.
One said the impetus was to slow down spending in order to hit short-term budgetary targets within the Treasury, even if that meant the project could cost more in the long run.
Labour are thinking about rolling back on some non dom policies from the manifesto. They are thinking it will not raise the money they expected. The budget will be interesting.
I would imagine that taxing education would have the same result.
It's interesting "logic" to say a proposal too raise additional taxes from the better off won't raise as much as initially expected so they consider not raising those taxes ... which will raise nothing at all and leave the hole to be filled even larger. Just raise the taxes on those who can afford to carry their share of the burden, and if it's not enough to do all that's needed then find some other way to raise that revenue. Is that not a simple enough concept?
It's interesting "logic" to say a proposal too raise additional taxes from the better off won't raise as much as initially expected so they consider not raising those taxes ... which will raise nothing at all and leave the hole to be filled even larger. Just raise the taxes on those who can afford to carry their share of the burden, and if it's not enough to do all that's needed then find some other way to raise that revenue. Is that not a simple enough concept?
Yes but they promised not raise taxes. That is making them think again. From what I can tell most people would be happy to pay a bit more tax if it meant things could get sorted.
It's interesting "logic" to say a proposal too raise additional taxes from the better off won't raise as much as initially expected so they consider not raising those taxes ... which will raise nothing at all and leave the hole to be filled even larger. Just raise the taxes on those who can afford to carry their share of the burden, and if it's not enough to do all that's needed then find some other way to raise that revenue. Is that not a simple enough concept?
Yes but they promised not raise taxes. That is making them think again. From what I can tell most people would be happy to pay a bit more tax if it meant things could get sorted.
They promised not to raise taxes from working people ( whatever that means) It appears to me that their priority was to win votes rather than sort out the economy.
It's interesting "logic" to say a proposal too raise additional taxes from the better off won't raise as much as initially expected so they consider not raising those taxes ... which will raise nothing at all and leave the hole to be filled even larger. Just raise the taxes on those who can afford to carry their share of the burden, and if it's not enough to do all that's needed then find some other way to raise that revenue. Is that not a simple enough concept?
Yes but they promised not raise taxes. That is making them think again. From what I can tell most people would be happy to pay a bit more tax if it meant things could get sorted.
They promised not to raise taxes from working people ( whatever that means) It appears to me that their priority was to win votes rather than sort out the economy.
This is almost correct. They promised not to rise some specific taxes and to not raise taxes on 'working people.'
It would be really nice to live in a world where a party could put relatively detailed plans in the manifesto rather than being so vague. However, that's (almost certainly) not the world we live in. That's what Labour did in 1992 and they got hammered for it and did not win the election. Many commentators - and more importantly, many inside Labour - think the openness about the tax plan was a big factor in that defeat.
Comments
Because part of their work is interacting with the public (as a contrast, the Metropolitan Police's Directorate of Media and Communication currently has just over 90 staff).
Exactly - ‘organisation has press office and photographers, which will extensively feature their boss’ is not a gotcha.
Though here I’m leaping to the defence of MHCLG (or whatever they’ve decided the new abbreviation is for the new name for the department) rather than their boss.
Given that you've just credulously repeated claims that Rayner spent public money on a personal photographer it's fairly clearly not a myth, middle class or otherwise (not that you can get much more middle class than the Mail).
It is neither middle class nor a myth. It is also not new.
Here's a poll from 2012:
Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/support-benefit-cuts-dependent-ignorance-tuc-commissioned-poll-finds
So let's take those one by one (2012 figures):
1. How much of the welfare budget goes on unemployment benefit? 41%? No. 3%.
2. What is the proportion of the benefit budget lost to fraud? 0.7%
3. How many people receiving Jobseeker's Allowance are claimants for more than a year? Half? Nope. A tenth.
4. How much was the benefit for that couple? £147? Nope. That's a 30% overestimate.
5. This couple would've been over £100 per week better off in one parent took a part time job.
So, there is actual data that shows that people believe the incorrect information pushed by certain newspapers. Primarily the Mail and Express are responsible here. And now GBNews
Let's just be clear. This is not opinion, this is mathematics. These papers publish factually inaccurately information and a large proportion of the population absorb it without necessarily realising.
Propaganda works.
A wise man once said, you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. Whilst I believe he meant it very specifically. I also believe he meant it generally.
We live and move in a mass media environment in which misinformation is everywhere.
AFZ
Before we go any further, I agree with you in terms of what you're saying, but (there's always a but...). I'm not sure why I'm doing this except I've lost my job and in the middle of applications to a million other places I've got time on my hands...
A sometime research professional writes:
That's all true as far as it goes, except that a decent critical thinker will look at the sources of everything that they are reading. Tbh, and here we're back to optics, if I was looking to topedo the views of those who have absorbed everything they are told by the tabloid press I'd think twice about citing research by the TUC.
I've got no doubt that the conclusions are broadly right (so I'm not arguing with the substance). YouGov are members of the British Polling Council and are, despite what the conspiracists say, totally reputable.
However. The TUC have got an agenda. They basically wanted to find what they found (otherwise they wouldn't have published the research that they paid for - the industry is littered with the smoking carcasses of reports where the client ends up saying 'oh. well that's not helpful' and puts them on a shelf in a cellar somewhere). And good researchers will, where possible, help their client to tell the story they want if the facts can support it.
If we think about the Scottish Referendum, and all the debate about the exact question that was going to be asked - you've got that here over probably about 30 questions (plus sub questions and routing, when I've really got time I'll see if there's a link to the survey itself but often those are kept confidential for exactly this reason). It's so dependent on what was asked and how it was asked. YouGov will have done it within the boundaries of a good survey - again, they are professionals - but that still leaves room for choices around language and wording.
What I'm saying is essentially you can price in what the tabloids will say, and unfortunately (especially for the tabloid audience) you can price in what the TUC will say. So 'well the TUC says this' is in this case more likely to be right, but still needs to be read through the lens of who they are and what their agenda is. I wouldn't want to use their numbers to fight this fire is what it comes down to - exactly the same numbers from a different source would be infinitely preferable, and I'm sure will exist somewhere.
Again, I'm arguing with the messenger here rather than the message.
Anyway, back to Guardian Jobs...
As you say. It's YouGov who ran the poll and at the time, the polling methods (i.e. the precise questions asked) and numbers were available on their website. (I don't know if they still are).
Critical thinking vs cynicism is important. I think we are in danger of fiercely agreeing.
AFZ
I don’t read any paper. I tend to get my news from the BBC. I have to take into account their bias.
If they did it would cancel out all the savings made by cancelling the winter fuel payment for all the others.
On the assumption that the government appear to know who these people are why don't the government make a start by letting them have the winter fuel paymemt. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-minister-urges-pensioners-to-check-eligibility-for-pension-credit-as-week-of-action-kicks-off
Yes, this point was made up thread.
No. The government doesn't know exactly who they are, but can look other systems and estimate the number of people who may be eligible with reasonable degrees of precision.
Right, but that's only one part of the means test, the other being savings (and whether you still have rent to pay). They can probably identify a bunch of people who are definitely not eligible but that doesn't help that much.
It will take a fair bit of time for Labour to re-organise the DWP into an organisation that helps people get the benefits they need, including even knowing who might be entitled to a benefit they're not claiming.
This. 1000% this.
which you are busy demonstrating to be true.
You're assuming that's the objective, which is by no means clear. Evidence this morning suggests ever more hostility and suspicion being cast on disabled people.
One thing he was saying was that the problem with politics is that too often it is about 'winning' and scoring points rather than delivering anything meaningful. And that the skills politics promotes (primarily argumentation/rhetoric) encourages entrenched positions rather than solutions to problems. That one can be terrible in debate and bad at rhetoric but have good ideas and vice versa.
Starmer is weirdly bad at rhetoric given he's a barrister, former prosecutor and politician. He rambles on, bores the audience and stumbles over words that have only passing resemblance to the words he is trying to say in a serious tone.
I suspect that this is because he does actually have his eyes on a higher goal. In the last few weeks we've seen how the predominantly rightwing press have been able to inflate nothing into something to the extent that a big proportion of the public believe it. Objectively, pensioners who take multiple holidays a year and live in half million pound houses are not in poverty. Some of them even say openly that they use the money for a holiday deposit or give it to their children to help with their household budgets. Having to take donor money is not new in British politics. Neither of these are big news.
What the "big idea" will actually be, I don't know. I doubt it is chasing benefit fraud or having a border command or using legislation to put in pylons. But it will have to be something quite large and it will have to be put in place quickly.
I was pleasantly surprised to be listening to a random history podcast - that stated it was sponsored by the DWP and encouraged me to check with any elderly relatives that they were getting pension credit if they might be entitled. Which suggests at least some budget has been diverted to increase take-up. I’ve listen to podcasts for years - this has never happened to me before.
Now while I appreciate that KS was acting as a good parent there is a (perhaps selfish) little voice in my head shouting but my children had to cope with their mother dying at home in a 2 bedroomed house while they revised for and sat their 'A levels.
This is ridiculous. My parents have a house worth £350k. My children stayed with them at different times, would I have to declare the value of using it if I was PM?
My daughter studied in the university library worth tens of millions of pounds. Would I have to declare that she spent several weeks/months of her life doing her work in it?
Maybe stop repeating this nonsense.
I would assume it's assessed on rental value (£10K a month for exclusive use of a property in one of the nicer parts of Central London)
No, because they were part of your family. You would need to do so if they had no relationship to you other than being a donor. It's fairly simple, let's not engage in performative hyperbole here.
It's no different that Johnson having to declare hospitality of this form received from Tory donors.
It's not hyperbole. Nobody normal quantifies the cost of staying with a friend. Unless the friend is actually owns a hotel, there's no actual value there because Starmer staying there hasn't somehow prevented the owner from selling the time/space to someone else.
The DM is engaged in some stupid form of equivalence between Johnson and Starmer. Johnson spent £ridiculous on redecorating the flat at Number 10? Ah well, how much did Starmer get from a donor for his glasses?
Johnson holidays on a private island with the son of a Russian plutocrat? Ah well, Starmer borrowed a flat for a week from his friend.
It's not even vaguely the same thing. The DM is only doing it to attempt to affect the social media algorithm.
So basically you want to argue amounts rather than principles.
He stayed there for around two months, there is no suggestion that they were friends of any standing, in fact one could easily argue - purely based on evidence in the public domain - that Johnson had more social contact with Lebedev than Starmer has had with Alli.
Why are you parroting bullshit?
I wasn't the one who introduced the idea that he was a friend of Starmer (not even Starmer has said that).
[And regarding Johnson, you can literally google, there's pages of articles like this one: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/21/parties-politics-peerages-boris-johnson-evgeny-lebedev-friendship ]
Sir Keir may be holier than Johnson but it's not a big achievement
This is one argument for making benefits universal and using the tax system to claw back benefits from those on good incomes. (The political choice would then be one of deciding what a 'good' income was.)
However, the way things are saves governments a great deal of money. Far more, I suspect, than has ever been lost through fraud.
No. The argument is that this is false equivalence. You may disgree but that is the argument. Otherwise you are arguing with a Strawman.
AFZ
I can't help thinking that if Corbyn had made that error the papers would be earnestly questioning whether mentioning a pork product was a deliberate insult to Jewish people.
I think his 2019 Conference quip was more serious and genuinely shameful.
"You're obviously confusing us with a party that gives a shit" vibes.
Yes the quip about the 2019 conference was bad. The young man who shouted out was removed roughly and his neck and arms were bruised. He was pick up by the police as he was taken out of the hall. Previously someone else shouted out at the conference and was arrested for disturbing the peace but let go with no charge.
This is the action of a dictatorship. Not a democracy.
Standard practice for (New) New Labour. I hoped we'd seen the back of the bastards but no such luck.
"Are there any ... in the theatre tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
That one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me.
Get him up against the wall.
And that one looks Jewish - and that one's a ...!
Who let all this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint - and another with spots!
If I had my way I'd have all of you shot!"
Pink Floyd, the Wall
Edited - decided to leave the slurs out all together. You can google the lyrics if you want.
In further evidence that they are suffering from Treasury Brain; from an article on the Transpennine Upgrade:
https://www.ft.com/content/be9cf2d2-7c41-4322-88f9-2ac1a21a3c06
I would imagine that taxing education would have the same result.
Yes but they promised not raise taxes. That is making them think again. From what I can tell most people would be happy to pay a bit more tax if it meant things could get sorted.
They promised not to raise taxes from working people ( whatever that means) It appears to me that their priority was to win votes rather than sort out the economy.
This is almost correct. They promised not to rise some specific taxes and to not raise taxes on 'working people.'
It would be really nice to live in a world where a party could put relatively detailed plans in the manifesto rather than being so vague. However, that's (almost certainly) not the world we live in. That's what Labour did in 1992 and they got hammered for it and did not win the election. Many commentators - and more importantly, many inside Labour - think the openness about the tax plan was a big factor in that defeat.
AFZ