Interesting points made on this blog here: edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended?

Interesting points made on this blog here: edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended?

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Interesting points made on this blog here: edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended?'" Why should he be any different to the any of the other greedy, tax-dodging, millionaire, benefit-scrounging expenses cheats.

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Interesting points made on this blog here: edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended?'" Why should he be any different to the any of the other greedy, tax-dodging, millionaire, benefit-scrounging expenses cheats.

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Interesting points made on this blog here: edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - Irrelevant. Did he commit fraud? - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year Irrelevant - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards Also irrelevant - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period Not sure what the policy is, but it does seem pretty generous I'll grant you. - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended? No since it ended after 6 months. Whether this was overly generous or not is a worthwhile debate though'"

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Interesting points made on this blog here: edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - Irrelevant. Did he commit fraud? - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year Irrelevant - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards Also irrelevant - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period Not sure what the policy is, but it does seem pretty generous I'll grant you. - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended? No since it ended after 6 months. Whether this was overly generous or not is a worthwhile debate though'"

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Interesting points made on this blog here: edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended?'" Even worse and despicable than this is that cancer sufferers themselves would be time limited on ESA to 1 year and after that year they will be put onto JSA. Yes thats right, cancer sufferers have one year to "get better" then they're fit to work and will have to actively seek work or lose the benefit. The Lords overturned this and voted to give cancer sufferers unlimited time on ESA but this disgraceful governenment have said once it goes back to the Commons they will use an old 1700's law to overturn the decision. Words failed me at the time and they still fail me now.

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Interesting points made on this blog here: edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended?'" Even worse and despicable than this is that cancer sufferers themselves would be time limited on ESA to 1 year and after that year they will be put onto JSA. Yes thats right, cancer sufferers have one year to "get better" then they're fit to work and will have to actively seek work or lose the benefit. The Lords overturned this and voted to give cancer sufferers unlimited time on ESA but this disgraceful governenment have said once it goes back to the Commons they will use an old 1700's law to overturn the decision. Words failed me at the time and they still fail me now.

Words should never fail you when it comes to Tory Governments and sheer heartlessness. They have such a long track record of victimising victims and robbing the most deserving. If this lot could harness the air, there'd be people crawling along the pavements, past the 5-star restaurants in which the fatcats still gorge themselves, and wheezing their last few words... 'can you spare 50p for the gas meter?'

Let them eat cake springs to mind too.

26k is more money than i take home
Do you think if MPs salary (and lets face it the expenses are part of that salary) was less it would make things better in Westminster, or worse?

I've long held the opinion that MP's should receive a stipend of £250k minimum.

In return they must undertake to perform no duties other than representing their constituents and possibly representing parliament. If they are called upon to perform duties other than representing their constituents, then they should receive expenses to cover any out of pocket costs. The £250k stipend includes any and all expenses they may incur if their business as an MP, so if they want to employ their wife or other family members, they can do so and pay them out of the £250k. Similarly, if they wish to own a second home, they are welcome to have one, they can pay the 2nd mortgage out of their £250k. The £250k stipend is also to cover travel between their constituency and parliament.

Oh, one more thing: their parliamentary working week will commence at 13.00 hours every Monday (bank holidays excepted) and end an 16.00 hours each Thursday. They then have all day Friday to attend to constituancy business. They should be aware though, a reasonable amount of overtime will be expected and will be unpaid.

This would rule Boris out (thankfully !!), who regards 250k as a bit oif pocket money.

IDS's inclusion of child benefit in the calculation is particularly nasty. You will have the situation where a family would be denied this benefit because having it would take them over the £26K threshold while a family with two people earning £40K will keep it even after the stupid legislation to remove it form higher rate tax payers.

What this shows is he clearly does not understand the concept of a universal benefit and does not know the difference between that and a welfare benefit. Getting the latter when you fall on hard times should not disqualify you from the former.

I think he knows the diefference all right, it just doesn't fit his dogma to see them as different.

But, hey, he's got a point ... those kids don't deserve to be helped, they shouldn't have chosen such lazy, feckless parents.

The best quote I heard yesterday was from one Tory, "Some people will lose their homes, they'll just have to move to a neighbourhood they can afford won't they".

The Labour party has a lot to answer for. They should be ripping into this nonsense but instead have disappeared up their own rear end talking about public spending cuts they can't commit to reversing "if" they get elected in three years time (which they absolutely won't anyway - and frankly don't deserve to be on current showing). F******g idiots led by a f*****g idiot.
He's "Tuff" though, really, really "Tuff". I almost cried the day they elected Mr Ed as leader, a coalition government that should have lasted 18 months with anything like a decent opposition has gone on to preside over riots, condemnation over rediculous and costly NHS reform plans, "increased" f*****g borrowing, sent us plummeting towards recession again (as predicted), the usual Tory levels of unemployment, the worst press scandal in living memory and now a highly predictable -it's all the foooking poor's fault bashing of people on benefits while the c***s who caused all the problems award themselves billions in bonus's again. And still, Call Me Dave's comedy writers have him sh***tting all over Mr Ed at every PM's question time.

Time to swap Millibands, hire Jon Stewart's writers and start taking some of the polish off the turd that is David Cameron (apparantly you can Mr Sadowitz - he's the living proof).

They should be ripping into all sorts of nonsense such as this, the education and NHS "reforms". Outright opposition and a clear statement that Labour will re-create the NHS as a true public service would win them the election on its own. Would unpicking Lansey's work cost money? Undoubtedly but that would be money well spent.

Unfortunately they are too timid to state outright opposition to anything as they try to appear reasonable. Alistair Darling is being proved right over the economy with even the IMF warning austerity with no growth is too dangerous a path to follow. There are plenty of government policies that require outright opposition and that would not imply any fiscal irresponsibility.

Unfortunately swapping Millibands would not work because D Milliband is as much a closet Tory as Blair was and that is why his brother got the leadership of the party in the first place. I think people expected Ed to be a darn sight redder than he is over things like the NHS but apart form Andy Burnham saying what Lansely is doing is wrong (which it is) he is not saying he will reverse the reforms if he gets into office.

That well know peddlar of insanity, The Guardian, had an article this morning likening Cameron's government / times / potential fate to Ted Heath's. Tellingly though, it ended by saying that Cameron can be thankful he doesn't have to face Harold Wilson in The Commons.

The problem with your analysis DHM is that although Labour need a new leader because they elected a clown they also need a fundamental change in policy direction. The other brother would not give that. The time is right for a really radical left-wing stance to be taken that starts off by absolutely and utterly rubbishing in an illectually sound way Thatchersim, New Labour and the coalition. Is that likely to happen? No chance with the current PLP in office.

I have read this post three times ... and I still (almost) agree with it.
I must have strayed into an alternate universe.

If you put a 1000 monkeys in a room with a 1000 typwriters....etc......etc.....?

I mostly agree with it as well, although I don't believe the British are ready for fundamental shifts to the left anymore. Blair realised this and we ended up with the lesser of two evils and we managed to get our hospitals and schools rebuilt. This is where David Milliband would have worked. I have always seen the radical left as uncompromising and self destructive - as well as being not particularly popular. Tony Benn, as revered as he seems to be now, was as potent a weapon in the Tory nal as Saatchi and Saatchi.

Politics - Ideals diluted by necessity
Ed Miliband (he may be a really good bloke/ politician) will NEVER be prime minister.

The time is right for conviction politics. People are fed up with weasly politics. Someone who is willing to stand up, talk bluntly and follow it through would work now / in the very near future.

Labour need to start winning arguments. The Tories came up with the politics of envy. The time is ripe for destroying the "politics of greed and selfishness." Will they have the guts to try to win an argument on those grounds? Have they got the personnel to win any argument? Probably, no and no.

Replace both with the "politics of dancing" and the job's a good 'un

Modern politics is without principle, it is governed by public opinion and seems to change with the day of the week or wind direction.
What we need, regardless of ones political preference, is some politiciand who are prepared to be unpopolar in the short term, but for the longer term good of the country.
Going back to expenses, I have no problem with any expense claim that is a genuine out of pocket cost, but dont take the "p".
and 26K in benefits is staggering. Many people have to work damn hard to ged a fraction of that !

The big difficulty with basing your political strategy on standing against "greed" is that most people are greedy, or stupid enough to believe the money train will let them on at some point in their lives (the housing market is one example of where for a second everyone thought that the money train had stopped at their station). Thatcher played on this to perfection with the "generous" selling of assetts we already owned back to us (well, when I say "us" I mean mainly really rich people who made a fortune). Also, a very strong counter argument is that people who go out to make themsleves wealthy generate employment and tax revenue, which is largely true. Capitalism needs subtle modifications that it would be hard to sell and even harder to actually communicate clearly. You only have to look at the universal fake thickness shown by political commentators last week when Mr Ed started talking about spending commitments Labour couldn't make 3 years before any chance they would be in power - "does that mean Labour now support the cuts? I don't understand? Suddenly I'm deliberately thick so I can make more of this than it is" etc...etc...etc...

I think "conviction politics" are the last things anyone needs, dogma is never flexible enough or caring enough to suit the demands of running a diverse culture and economy. Blair - love or hate - tried not to get tied down and that gives you options - you can pick the best options, not those that are restricted by your "convictions".

I think people misunderstand Blair on this point. He wasn't a flip flop politician or one that avoided conviction for the sake of being uncontroversial. Blair was similar to Thatcher in that he was convinced in his own sense of moral right and wrong and did not bother if that went against public opinion - see his stance on the Euro and EU, tuition fees, academies and of course war in Kosovo and Iraq, where he was against the tide of public opinion on all fronts but never tried to soften his stance.

A lot of Blair's convictions were fairly uncontroversial in terms of they were shared by a large proportion of the population, centre leftish but authoritarian on issues of law and order and security (although he proved himself to the right of public opinion on security once the paranoia post 9/11 had set in).

Blair was always talking about welfare reform in his early years in office as well, but New Labour's welfare reform was more about rewarding the low paid for taking work, with tax credits etc. This at the time was fairly popular as it was the "hand up rather than a hand out" and it was seen as reducing the poverty trap where it paid people more not to work than take low paid work. Unemployment fell considerably during the era of 1997-2007. However now, those low earners that are benefiting from tax credits, get demonised as being families that scrounge support off the state instead of living off their own low incomes, and the Tories say that there are too many families getting subsidised by the state.

It will be interesting to see over the next couple of years if the welfare bill goes up or down. I suspect, as it did in Margaret Thatcher's time, that for all the Tories welfare reform, the overall bill to the taxpayer will rise.

Change "convictions" for "principals", should we all not have some principals ? ok these may change over time, but there has to be a starting point for our beliefs.

Principals? Principles?

I hate to be a pedant, but hate ignorance more.