Govt deficit eliminated.

[longgone]

23 minutes ago, GregBowman said:

Why !! Its Sunday afternoon just got tickets to Don Mclean can't wait

still to try an american pie

[crashmonitor]

6 minutes ago, Will! said:

That's the point.  If we change Social Security law to a simple contributions-based principle, but then create an exception for people whose circumstances don't fit the principle (as distinct from people with genuinely exceptional circumstances) then it's not long before we create exceptions for other people whose circumstances don't fit the contributions-based principle and then we've recreated the current mess.

As an example, suppose we have a contributions-based welfare system with a special exception for people who've been detained under the Mental Health Act and not been able to pay NI contributions.  But then what about people who've had long-stay or frequent voluntary admissions to hospital with mental health problems, but not been detained?  What about people who've needed very frequent outpatient mental health assessment/treatment that's affected their ability to work and pay NI contributions?  If we create exceptions for all of them then we've re-created many (probably most) of the current anxiety/depression Employment Support Allowance claims.

There will be a lot of exceptions, there are millions of working age people with mental disability that don't work, you will have millions of able bodied people with impaired nic records including migrants that came to the UK late in life. If they have say a 10/35 th record at 67 you clearly have to live on the streets or open workhouses again. Wont happen, there will always be a minimum guarantee, so contribution based is pointless.

Edited March 4, 2018 by crashmonitor

[nothernsoul]

The labour party and the lords did block tax credit reform. However, there was also pressure from tory backbench mps in marginal seats who had a high percentage of voters on them. A lot of the rightwing press, like the sun, normally against scroungers, were against tax credit reforms too,  as they knew many of their readers were on them. By design, tax credits were meant to go deep into the electorate, and have a "deserving, hard working family" association. 

The point is, it is almost electorally impossible to directly take money off voters. Or allow market forces to reduce the value of their houses That is why so much is done by stealth, which is often worse in the long run. 

If anything is to happen it will have to follow a major crisis, such as that detailed on durhamborns thread. 

 

[Fence]

13 minutes ago, Will! said:

That's the point.  If we change Social Security law to a simple contributions-based principle, but then create an exception for people whose circumstances don't fit the principle (as distinct from people with genuinely exceptional circumstances) then it's not long before we create exceptions for other people whose circumstances don't fit the contributions-based principle and then we've recreated the current mess.

As an example, suppose we have a contributions-based welfare system with a special exception for people who've been detained under the Mental Health Act and not been able to pay NI contributions.  But then what about people who've had long-stay or frequent voluntary admissions to hospital with mental health problems, but not been detained?  What about people who've needed very frequent outpatient mental health assessment/treatment that's affected their ability to work and pay NI contributions?  If we create exceptions for all of them then we've re-created many (probably most) of the current anxiety/depression Employment Support Allowance claims.

No, not necessarily.  All assumptions, etc to not try and change and improve things.  For example, we haven't even discussed what "exceptions" actually means.  Nor look at any data.  Nor should we, this is a Sunday afternoon and I'm not being paid for this work!  Some of us have had a life of cracking on and sorting things out while minimising the effects of negative "change agents".  If it's just politically unacceptable regardless of the facts, then fair enough, but please be honest and just say so and save everyone's time. Sorry, but this is all very depressing.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Fence

[crashmonitor]

8 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

Yes. With automation decimating jobs in the not to distant future I think this is a no brainer and much fairer than the current system based on "need" rather than contribution.

The CI would presumably have to be set pretty low not enough to cover rent. I'm guessing we would still have housing benefit in some form, the elderly and disabled would  still want CI +++. Back to square one.

Edited March 4, 2018 by crashmonitor

[winkie]

2 hours ago, spyguy said:

A contribution based system wont fix everything. Itll fix most so you deal with the problem cases.

80% of the uk population should manage to work 30 years in their life. If not, the price of housing, a major cost, will fall to what they can afford.

Very many countries work on the contribution based system unless in the unfortunate position of being disabled, unable to work......savings made are then invested in the countries infrastructure and into important skills training......building much needed new infrastructure provides many new jobs......providing the jobs, giving people something worthwhile and useful to do and pays the taxes that adds to their own future contribution, health, education and retirement needs.... benefits are now paying without working contribution......our system allows this, not every system does.

[bivvy]

Govt deficit eliminated.

does that mean the housing market CRASH is cancelled ?

[GregBowman]

23 minutes ago, longgone said:

still to try an american pie

LOL 

[crashmonitor]

Re.spyguy 30 years...I was checking on my pension forecast last night. It's actually 35. I had done 37, two didn't count towards my contracting out shortfall as they were before the new rules and I had already hit 35 years. I'm three years short courtesy of contracting out but can now make up those lost years.

Mustn't complain it used to be 44 and £800 buy back is a bargain.

Edited March 4, 2018 by crashmonitor

[Eva24]

5 hours ago, frederico said:

Can you repeat that in English please 

Suffering from a bit of the green eyed monster by the sounds of it to be so disparaging.

[“Nasty Piece of work”]

54 minutes ago, GregBowman said:

Why !! Its Sunday afternoon just got tickets to Don Mclean can't wait

Wasn’t he on Crackerjack!?

[winkie]

3 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

Re.spyguy 30 years...I was checking on my pension forecast last night. It's actually 35. I had done 37, two didn't count towards the contractong out shortfall as they were before the new rules and I had hit 35 years. I'm three years short courtesy of contracting out.

Mustn't complain it used to be 44 and £800 buy back is a bargain.

Like continuing movement of age when any pension might be collected, the amount will get or rather what that amount will buy at the time is all rather an ongoing guessing game......wait and see, nothing is guaranteed.....might never happen.

[nothernsoul]

A question that needs considering is why neither labour or the conservatives moved to a contribution based welfare system? Since 1979 both parties had long periods of electoral dominance to do this. 

My own opinion, the labour party would have been scared of taking money of their core vote and opposition from sections of the party. Trickier answer with the tories, a contribution based system with the "to get out you must pay in" principle would have played well with their core vote, the aspirational working class and the tabloid press. Possibly they were ideologically put off by the fact such systems are a key part of european social democracies. If it had actually worked better and become popular, much harder to shrink back the state. 

[Si1]

24 minutes ago, Will! said:

Is the ECML subject to meaningful competition, or just comparison?

That's a very very fair question. In the ECML's case I believe it is, although I am sure that is not then universally applicable across all major routes.

London to Edinburgh/Glasgow/N Scotland - competes with West Coast Main Line (Virgin West coast is different company from Virgin East Coast which is 90% owned by Stagecoach), airlines, express coaches. On the southern half of the ECML Virgin East Coast competes with Great Northern fast commuter trains as far as Peterborough AFAIK, and also open access operators Grand Central and Hull Trains. And of course express coach operators. Also Leeds to Heathrow flights. There used to be Leeds to St Pancras services over central mainline going thru Sheffield, Notts etc but I don't think that's competition any more.

Between York and Edinburgh, Virgin East Coast competes with Cross Country trains which join the ECML at York having come up from Birmingham on their way to Edinburgh and further. I would think that express coaches aren't much cop over this distance as the A1 road is AFAIK still mostly single carriageway up to Edinburgh.

[winkie]

10 minutes ago, Freezer? Best place for it said:

Wasn’t he on Crackerjack!?

 

[spyguy]

41 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

What has Saint Frank Field MP achieved in his 39 years in Parliament other than accumulating a very nice pension pot? He was found out under Blair who made him Minister for Welfare Reform in 1997, found that Frank Field was all mouth and no action, and booted him out a year later. Don't know why people are still canonising him 20 years later, he had his chance and totally fluffed it.

Elected in 78, one year before Cons had a 17 year winning streak.

97, Brown starts to 'do the unthinkable'. First bit of Browns bullying and bent politics - getting rid of Frank, as Brown wanted to bribe everyone to vote for him.

2016, nominate Corbyn for leader.

[spyguy]

37 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

The labour party and the lords did block tax credit reform. However, there was also pressure from tory backbench mps in marginal seats who had a high percentage of voters on them. A lot of the rightwing press, like the sun, normally against scroungers, were against tax credit reforms too,  as they knew many of their readers were on them. By design, tax credits were meant to go deep into the electorate, and have a "deserving, hard working family" association. 

The point is, it is almost electorally impossible to directly take money off voters. Or allow market forces to reduce the value of their houses That is why so much is done by stealth, which is often worse in the long run. 

If anything is to happen it will have to follow a major crisis, such as that detailed on durhamborns thread. 

 

No the papers wernt against reform.

We are approaching crisis - tax credits for 16h in nail bar. Or public services.

You pick.

If tax credits, whose concept im actually for, were done correctly-

38h work to qualify.

Workfare for people refusing to get or no benefits.

Not available to non citizens.

A 500m top for holding dlwn a nmw job is a god thing. Taper off up to 28k.

[spyguy]

14 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

A question that needs considering is why neither labour or the conservatives moved to a contribution based welfare system? Since 1979 both parties had long periods of electoral dominance to do this. 

My own opinion, the labour party would have been scared of taking money of their core vote and opposition from sections of the party. Trickier answer with the tories, a contribution based system with the "to get out you must pay in" principle would have played well with their core vote, the aspirational working class and the tabloid press. Possibly they were ideologically put off by the fact such systems are a key part of european social democracies. If it had actually worked better and become popular, much harder to shrink back the state. 

Gidiot and coalition had 2 years to roll back Browns voteforme mess.

They bottled.

If they raised tax credit hours by 2h week over 10 years, thryd have defused it by now.

If theyd have sorted out EE benefit claims then Brexit would  have probably not  happened.

Fuxing up and not doing stuff when it needs doing has long term, expensive costs.

Why did Cons reformed benegits? Until tax credits they really wernt that expensive. Moving to a contrib based system, whivh id want, would have codted more.

But have been cheaper than tax crefts and not habe the long term negative effects.

[Dorkins]

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

Elected in 78, one year before Cons had a 17 year winning streak.

97, Brown starts to 'do the unthinkable'. First bit of Browns bullying and bent politics - getting rid of Frank, as Brown wanted to bribe everyone to vote for him.

2016, nominate Corbyn for leader.

So Frank Field had 17 years in Parliament to come up with a plan for how he would reform welfare when Labour next came to power. Day 1 after becoming the minister responsible for welfare reform: "So what's the plan, Frank?" Answer came there none. He still doesn't have a plan now as far as I can see, he just likes to moan eloquently about the problems with the current system.

It was Blair who kicked him out for incompetence, not Brown on manoeuvres.

At least IDS had a plan when he got the job, albeit a terrible one. "Hey IDS, how can we fix the massive disincentives to productivity inherent in our current benefits system?" "Er, computers?"

Anyway I know I won't convince any members of the Frank Field fan club to change their minds, they can only see Frank Field the speechmaker and not Frank Field the failed minister. "If only we had had someone sensible like Frank Field in charge of welfare reform, we wouldn't be in this mess!" Er, he was in charge of welfare reform.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Dorkins

[spyguy]

4 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

So Frank Field had 17 years in Parliament to come up with a plan for how he would reform welfare when Labour next came to power. Day 1 after becoming the minister responsible for welfare reform: "So what's the plan, Frank?" Answer came there none. He still doesn't have a plan now as far as I can see, he just likes to moan eloquently about the problems with the current system.

It was Blair who kicked him out for incompetence, not Brown on manoeuvres.

At least IDS had a plan when he got the job, albeit a terrible one. "Hey IDS, how can we fix the massive disincentives to productivity inherent in our current benefits system?" "Er, computers?"

No it wasnt, not really. It was Brown.

Blair was interested in being seen as a go getter, a doer.

Brown wanted to control everthing connected with money.

A plan depends on the budget.

[Dorkins]

1 minute ago, spyguy said:

A plan depends on the budget.

What was Frank Field's plan? He's had 39 years of speeches to tell us.

[Si1]

I do know that IDS also sacked Frank Field as a special adviser owing to the same lack of pragmatism that Field showed under Blair. Or something like that.

[nothernsoul]

I cant get link up but the sun headline the day after tax credit u turn was " Tax credits scrapped by osborne in a u turn after sun campaign"  Headline in express about helping hard working families. It doesnt matter what a newspapers ideology is they are never going to alienate their readership by advoacating measures to directly, and noticably make them worse off. 

[Fence]

35 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

So Frank Field had 17 years in Parliament to come up with a plan for how he would reform welfare when Labour next came to power. Day 1 after becoming the minister responsible for welfare reform: "So what's the plan, Frank?" Answer came there none. He still doesn't have a plan now as far as I can see, he just likes to moan eloquently about the problems with the current system.

It was Blair who kicked him out for incompetence, not Brown on manoeuvres.

At least IDS had a plan when he got the job, albeit a terrible one. "Hey IDS, how can we fix the massive disincentives to productivity inherent in our current benefits system?" "Er, computers?"

Anyway I know I won't convince any members of the Frank Field fan club to change their minds, they can only see Frank Field the speechmaker and not Frank Field the failed minister. "If only we had had someone sensible like Frank Field in charge of welfare reform, we wouldn't be in this mess!" Er, he was in charge of welfare reform.

I worked with teams.  We needed all sorts - executors, thought leaders, moralists.  A good leader blends them into a performing team.  No-one is a master at all.  Don't get me wrong, he's another polo but he is better than most, especially the younger shite that seem to want to trash him and his wisdom for their own sordid progression.

[spyguy]

31 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

I cant get link up but the sun headline the day after tax credit u turn was " Tax credits scrapped by osborne in a u turn after sun campaign"  Headline in express about helping hard working families. It doesnt matter what a newspapers ideology is they are never going to alienate their readership by advoacating measures to directly, and noticably make them worse off. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/politics/206462/tax-credits-cut-bonkers/

'SINGLE dad-of-two George, 37, says of the Tory who shares his name: “I’d like to see the Chancellor coping with my budget. He wouldn’t be able to.”

George, of Newbury, Berks, earns £130 a week driving a van for a supermarket chain for 16 hours.

His wage is boosted by £127 a week tax credits, which are due to be axed.

He said of the planned cuts: “They will devastate me. What’s the point of working?”'

Err your not working.