However, despite the widely-reported potential for the government to monitor bank accounts that it not what's actually proposed here. We will have to see what the final language in the bill says what she's proposing is something quite different.
Except in their follow-up article this is exactly how the Telegraph describe it:
Now you could say that this is all spin (in the same way as you you described their followup on Streeting's column), but that raises the question of exactly why the government is happy to put out exclusive content for an outlet which habitually misrepresents their policies.
However, despite the widely-reported potential for the government to monitor bank accounts that it not what's actually proposed here. We will have to see what the final language in the bill says what she's proposing is something quite different.
Except in their follow-up article this is exactly how the Telegraph describe it:
Now you could say that this is all spin (in the same way as you you described their followup on Streeting's column), but that raises the question of exactly why the government is happy to put out exclusive content for an outlet which habitually misrepresents their policies.
It's a Telegraph story. I want to know what's in the bill. Nothing more, nothing less.
The source has a long track-record of misrepresenting the situation. So it is not a reliable indication of the upcoming legislation.
As you have noticed, I am being very particular about what government ministers have actually said, compared to what various sources claim it means.
The question of which publications government ministers decide to write for to get information out is an entirely separate one. An interesting and important one indeed but you are conflating two things. Essentially you are saying because the Telegraph puts a particular interpretation on certain things, government ministers must be endorsing that interpretation when writing these articles. That doesn't hold at all. I would love government ministers to never write for The Mail, The Express, The Sun or the Telegraph, but that's a different debate.
It's interesting that they put a £7Bn figure on fraud. I need to have a look at that. That's about three times the historic level so it may well be there's a growing problem to be addressed here. Again, until I see it from a trustworthy source, I'm not going to take it at face value.
The question of which publications government ministers decide to write for to get information out is an entirely separate one. An interesting and important one indeed but you are conflating two things.
Alternatively you are holding things to be separate when they are linked. This isn't a purely technocratic decision, it's based on working relationships between the ministers or their senior advisors with parts of the press (not everything is as blatant as Kuenssberg's reporting on the Johnson era Tories).
Essentially you are saying because the Telegraph puts a particular interpretation on certain things, government ministers must be endorsing that interpretation when writing these articles.
No. I'm not saying that at all; Rather each newspaper speaks to a particular audience, the government knows how a particular paper is going interpret a particular policy and/or which aspects of a particular policy they'd emphasize. Whether those are distortions or not they've calculated that the combination serves their purpose.
This is a fairly basic extrapolation of the issues mentioned in that other thread, this too is media literacy.
Essentially you are saying because the Telegraph puts a particular interpretation on certain things, government ministers must be endorsing that interpretation when writing these articles.
No. I'm not saying that at all; Rather each newspaper speaks to a particular audience, the government knows how a particular paper is going interpret a particular policy and/or which aspects of a particular policy they'd emphasize. Whether those are distortions or not they've calculated that the combination serves their purpose.
Help me out here, how is that not a distinction without a difference?
Essentially you are saying because the Telegraph puts a particular interpretation on certain things, government ministers must be endorsing that interpretation when writing these articles.
No. I'm not saying that at all; Rather each newspaper speaks to a particular audience, the government knows how a particular paper is going interpret a particular policy and/or which aspects of a particular policy they'd emphasize. Whether those are distortions or not they've calculated that the combination serves their purpose.
Help me out here, how is that not a distinction without a difference?
There's no clean (and technocratic) line to be drawn between the presence of their column in a particular newspaper and the coverage of issues in the rest of the paper, rather their column is where it is precisely because of that coverage.
Essentially you are saying because the Telegraph puts a particular interpretation on certain things, government ministers must be endorsing that interpretation when writing these articles.
No. I'm not saying that at all; Rather each newspaper speaks to a particular audience, the government knows how a particular paper is going interpret a particular policy and/or which aspects of a particular policy they'd emphasize. Whether those are distortions or not they've calculated that the combination serves their purpose.
Help me out here, how is that not a distinction without a difference?
There's no clean (and technocratic) line to be drawn between the presence of their column in a particular newspaper and the coverage of issues in the rest of the paper, rather their column is where it is precisely because of that coverage.
Right so you are saying that by putting a column in said paper, the minister is endorsing how it's reported. Moreover you are implying that the reporting is 'really what the minister is saying.'
Essentially you are saying because the Telegraph puts a particular interpretation on certain things, government ministers must be endorsing that interpretation when writing these articles.
No. I'm not saying that at all; Rather each newspaper speaks to a particular audience, the government knows how a particular paper is going interpret a particular policy and/or which aspects of a particular policy they'd emphasize. Whether those are distortions or not they've calculated that the combination serves their purpose.
Help me out here, how is that not a distinction without a difference?
There's no clean (and technocratic) line to be drawn between the presence of their column in a particular newspaper and the coverage of issues in the rest of the paper, rather their column is where it is precisely because of that coverage.
Right so you are saying that by putting a column in said paper, the minister is endorsing how it's reported. Moreover you are implying that the reporting is 'really what the minister is saying.'
Ironically those are two different things which you are conflating. Yes, the minister is absolutely endorsing how it's being reported, because they are signalling their allegiances in the choice of outlet. No, that isn't necessarily what the minister 'is really saying', but it serves their purpose to have another article in the same paper report on 'what they are really saying' (whether that's real or imagined).
[It's also stupid and short-sighted if you are even vaguely on the left or even the centre, because every issue ends up being framed in increasingly reactionary terms].
Essentially you are saying because the Telegraph puts a particular interpretation on certain things, government ministers must be endorsing that interpretation when writing these articles.
No. I'm not saying that at all; Rather each newspaper speaks to a particular audience, the government knows how a particular paper is going interpret a particular policy and/or which aspects of a particular policy they'd emphasize. Whether those are distortions or not they've calculated that the combination serves their purpose.
Help me out here, how is that not a distinction without a difference?
There's no clean (and technocratic) line to be drawn between the presence of their column in a particular newspaper and the coverage of issues in the rest of the paper, rather their column is where it is precisely because of that coverage.
Right so you are saying that by putting a column in said paper, the minister is endorsing how it's reported. Moreover you are implying that the reporting is 'really what the minister is saying.'
Ironically those are two different things which you are conflating. Yes, the minister is absolutely endorsing how it's being reported, because they are signalling their allegiances in the choice of outlet. No, that isn't necessarily what the minister 'is really saying', but it serves their purpose to have another article in the same paper report on 'what they are really saying' (whether that's real or imagined).
[It's also stupid and short-sighted if you are even vaguely on the left or even the centre, because every issue ends up being framed in increasingly reactionary terms].
So you're saying that they want that particular spin?
I'm just trying to understand your point.
In terms of Streeting's article and the policy in question. What is being reported is a world away from the actual policy (at this stage). Now it may well be that Wes wants to go in a particular direction and I will unequivocally criticise attempts to coerce people into work. I always have. However, the specific policy in question is literally a trial of a treatment which as his article says will benefit health and have additional economic benefits as well if it's as effective as hoped. Nothing about that is untrue.
All I am doing in both cases is assessing the policy position based on the facts as they currently are.
You seem to be saying because the ministers write about it in particular papers the policies are bad.... You are clinging to odd distinctions that make no sense to me. Unless you are arguing not so much with the policy but with the decision to seek a right-wing spin on such policy which is an interesting political discussion about tactics. But I don't think that's what you're saying at all.
Essentially you are saying because the Telegraph puts a particular interpretation on certain things, government ministers must be endorsing that interpretation when writing these articles.
No. I'm not saying that at all; Rather each newspaper speaks to a particular audience, the government knows how a particular paper is going interpret a particular policy and/or which aspects of a particular policy they'd emphasize. Whether those are distortions or not they've calculated that the combination serves their purpose.
Help me out here, how is that not a distinction without a difference?
There's no clean (and technocratic) line to be drawn between the presence of their column in a particular newspaper and the coverage of issues in the rest of the paper, rather their column is where it is precisely because of that coverage.
Right so you are saying that by putting a column in said paper, the minister is endorsing how it's reported. Moreover you are implying that the reporting is 'really what the minister is saying.'
Ironically those are two different things which you are conflating. Yes, the minister is absolutely endorsing how it's being reported, because they are signalling their allegiances in the choice of outlet. No, that isn't necessarily what the minister 'is really saying', but it serves their purpose to have another article in the same paper report on 'what they are really saying' (whether that's real or imagined).
[It's also stupid and short-sighted if you are even vaguely on the left or even the centre, because every issue ends up being framed in increasingly reactionary terms].
So you're saying that they want that particular spin?
Absolutely; and the idea that this is a process that will be perfectly insulated from actual policy is for the birds.
Tangent alert. But it is relevant to much of our conversation here.
Following a pilot study in 1999, The government introduced a bus lane on the M4 near Heathrow in 2001. It was scrapped in 2010.
When I heard about this policy I rolled my eyes. A bus lane on the motorway? Come on be serious, that's the triumph of ideology over common sense surely? Ok. so I supported the then government overall but would not have defended this policy. It was slaughtered in the media. Not least because it's occupancy was so low. The lane was mostly empty, most of the time.
I only found this out subsequently but it was a good policy. It improved journey times for cars! and reduced CO2 emissions by 16%.
I could just leave it there. It is a stark contrast between what is reported and what is actually going on. There are lots of other examples but this is one of the simplest to explain. This is why I am so picky about details of policy. And why I am very careful to not form a view based solely on what's reported. HS2 is not about journey times from London to Birmingham, it's all about rail capacity.
The key here is that it is not about buses at all. It is all about traffic flow.
In west London, the M4 has an elevated section that is only 2 lanes. Realistically this is not going to change. The financial costs would be huge and a large number of homes and businesses would have to be demolished to make this happen. Between junctions 3 and 2 in an Eastbound direction (into London) the motorway therefore has to go from three lanes to two lanes.
Even if drivers behaved perfectly (which they so often don't in these situations) traffic flow still behaves much like flow-mechanics and there is an inevitable bottleneck which causes significant rush-hour delays.
Theoretically, because of where the traffic is joining and leaving etc. it could be the case that moving the reduction from three lanes to two back a bit (i.e. in this case to Junction 3) could improve the flow. In means that traffic joining the M4 eastbound at junction 3 joins a two lane roadway rather than merging into three and then being reduced in a few miles. An 18-month trial showed that in real-world conditions this was indeed the case. By closing 3.5 miles of the outside lane and making the 2 lane section start at junction 3, travel times and congestion were improved.
That's it, that's what the policy was all about.
Of course, you could just leave that 3.5m section of tarmac closed off but actually it's an added bonus to make it available to buses etc. travelling into London from Heathrow.
Hence it is a good policy:
1. It improves the public transport system
2. It improves congestion
3. It improves journey times for car drivers
4. It reduces CO2 emissions
5. It costs virtually nothing
On the other hand, it was really easy for the media to paint it as another war on the motorist story.
Ok, end of tangent but my point is a simple one and I think is totally relevant to many of our current discussions. I will criticise the government for policies that do harm. However, I am really bored of arguments about what the government is supposedly doing when it's a report of what they might be doing. I am only interested in the reality and details of the policy.* The health secretary wrote an article about a real-world trial about obesity treatment that if it works as hoped will improve health for many. And would also have economic benefits in terms of a reduction in NHS demand and a likely reduction in sick leave and some people being able to get back to work. Literally, that is what he said in his article, nothing more, nothing less.
We could have a constructive article about this policy position but instead it's been all about how the evil government is trying to force people to have injections to make them get back to work. Why? Because that's what everyone is saying they really mean.
I will not take the government at their word if the legislation and actual policies do not live up to what they claim. However, I will not vilify them for what an unreliable source says their policy is when said claim is demonstrably different to what they actually announced.
AFZ
*OK, that's not 100% true as government rhetoric is also important as it frames the debate, so I'm a little hyperbolic here.
However, I am really bored of arguments about what the government is supposedly doing when it's a report of what they might be doing.
I'd be more sympathetic to that argument if I could just find the hundreds of posts on here extending the same courtesy to the previous government in the first 6 months after the 2010 election (or the first 6 months after 2015 when the Tories governed alone)
Inundated we were, with posts saying 'ignore the papers, let's wait to see what they do!'
However, I am really bored of arguments about what the government is supposedly doing when it's a report of what they might be doing.
I'd be more sympathetic to that argument if I could just find the hundreds of posts on here extending the same courtesy to the previous government in the first 6 months after the 2010 election (or the first 6 months after 2015 when the Tories governed alone)
Inundated we were, with posts saying 'ignore the papers, let's wait to see what they do!'
Not an accurate comparison. The 2010 government enjoyed a plurality of cheer-leading media and a quiescent BBC who were happy to propagate the myth that austerity was necessary despite well over 90% of economists begging the government not to be so foolish.
Moreover, Osborne's budget was within a month or so of the election and the criticism was exactly on point.
This government is being attacked from both left and right for distortions of what they've said. It may be the case that the critics are right but at the moment it's a helluva lot of jumping to conclusions and/or putting 2 and 2 together and making 168.
*OK, that's not 100% true as government rhetoric is also important as it frames the debate, so I'm a little hyperbolic here.
Well yes, and you understand this principle when it comes to arguing about a topic that matters to you (I wonder how often you've read the disability news services's coverage of Kendall and Streeting for instance?)
However, I am really bored of arguments about what the government is supposedly doing when it's a report of what they might be doing.
I'd be more sympathetic to that argument if I could just find the hundreds of posts on here extending the same courtesy to the previous government in the first 6 months after the 2010 election
As I recall, in 2010 most posters here were in favour - however reluctantly - of austerity, having largely bought the framing of the press, and those of arguing against it were a very small and beleaguered minority.
*OK, that's not 100% true as government rhetoric is also important as it frames the debate, so I'm a little hyperbolic here.
Well yes, and you understand this principle when it comes to arguing about a topic that matters to you (I wonder how often you've read the disability news services's coverage of Kendall and Streeting for instance?)
Ok. So is your point that the government is responsible for the framing of the debate because of where they chose to write about it?
*OK, that's not 100% true as government rhetoric is also important as it frames the debate, so I'm a little hyperbolic here.
Well yes, and you understand this principle when it comes to arguing about a topic that matters to you (I wonder how often you've read the disability news services's coverage of Kendall and Streeting for instance?)
Ok. So is your point that the government is responsible for the framing of the debate because of where they chose to write about it?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say yes, that's one of my points. Given the 'Hero Voter' strategy of their faction of the party it's hard not see it as entirely deliberate - and they've not been beyond being explicit about it ("drum-banging, finger-wagging extremists")
*OK, that's not 100% true as government rhetoric is also important as it frames the debate, so I'm a little hyperbolic here.
Well yes, and you understand this principle when it comes to arguing about a topic that matters to you (I wonder how often you've read the disability news services's coverage of Kendall and Streeting for instance?)
Ok. So is your point that the government is responsible for the framing of the debate because of where they chose to write about it?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say yes, that's one of my points. Given the 'Hero Voter' strategy of their faction of the party it's hard not see it as entirely deliberate - and they've not been beyond being explicit about it ("drum-banging, finger-wagging extremists")
Ok. How would you put it?
I'm trying to be as specific as possible because previously you've indicated that I was misunderstanding what you are saying.
The one thing our economy needs more than anything else is capital investment.
Ultimately, it's a lot more expensive not to do these things.
No magic. No tree. Just real economics. We have just lived through a decade and a half of a government that chose to ignore reality. The end result is a public realm that is falling apart despite a higher tax burden.
It will take a long time to fix but rail investment is a key part of this. Especially when we also need to reduce our CO2 production.
I doubt that manual workers use much rail travel and many white collar workers like to work from home.
@Telford wherever I go the roads are clogged with millions of cars. Whoever these millions of people are, and wherever they're going, there's an obvious CO2 benefit modal shift towards rail (not to mention other modes such as trams, buses, cycling and walking).
The one thing our economy needs more than anything else is capital investment.
Ultimately, it's a lot more expensive not to do these things.
No magic. No tree. Just real economics. We have just lived through a decade and a half of a government that chose to ignore reality. The end result is a public realm that is falling apart despite a higher tax burden.
It will take a long time to fix but rail investment is a key part of this. Especially when we also need to reduce our CO2 production.
I doubt that manual workers use much rail travel and many white collar workers like to work from home.
@Telford wherever I go the roads are clogged with millions of cars. Whoever these millions of people are, and wherever they're going, there's an obvious CO2 benefit modal shift towards rail (not to mention other modes such as trams, buses, cycling and walking).
Now, do you have anything to actually contribute to the discussion?
Yes. Please try not to exaggerate. It is misleading and not helpful.
I did not exaggerate. There are indeed millions of cars in the country. You clearly couldn't even be arsed to read the link, and are even more clearly avoiding actually addressing the issue.
The one thing our economy needs more than anything else is capital investment.
Ultimately, it's a lot more expensive not to do these things.
No magic. No tree. Just real economics. We have just lived through a decade and a half of a government that chose to ignore reality. The end result is a public realm that is falling apart despite a higher tax burden.
It will take a long time to fix but rail investment is a key part of this. Especially when we also need to reduce our CO2 production.
I doubt that manual workers use much rail travel and many white collar workers like to work from home.
@Telford wherever I go the roads are clogged with millions of cars. Whoever these millions of people are, and wherever they're going, there's an obvious CO2 benefit modal shift towards rail (not to mention other modes such as trams, buses, cycling and walking).
Now, do you have anything to actually contribute to the discussion?
Yes. Please try not to exaggerate. It is misleading and not helpful.
I did not exaggerate.
Yes you did when you said wherever I go the roads are clogged with millions of cars.
There are indeed millions of cars in the country.
True
You clearly couldn't even be arsed to read the link, and are even more clearly avoiding actually addressing the issue.
I started reading your link but I felt that I might not live long enough to read it all. In any case it did not prove your ascertain that there are millions of cars wherever you go.
The roads of the country are clogged by the millions of cars in the country. I see this wherever I go.
You're not trying to catch someone out in an interview room now, sunshine.
Again, do you have any useful contribution to this discussion?
How can I discuss anything with someone who insists on exaggerating.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? How can I discuss anything with anyone who seizes on irrelevant interpretations of posts even when they've been fully explained rather than posting anything even vaguely relevant to the point?
The roads of the country are clogged by the millions of cars in the country. I see this wherever I go.
You're not trying to catch someone out in an interview room now, sunshine.
Again, do you have any useful contribution to this discussion?
How can I discuss anything with someone who insists on exaggerating.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? How can I discuss anything with anyone who seizes on irrelevant interpretations of posts even when they've been fully explained rather than posting anything even vaguely relevant to the point?
Fucksake. That comment has had one response to something it never said from one poster and ridiculous nitpicking from you. I can only assume that's reluctant acknowledgement that I'm bang on.
Fucksake. That comment has had one response to something it never said from one poster and ridiculous nitpicking from you. I can only assume that's reluctant acknowledgement that I'm bang on.
I attempt a bit of humour and your response was Now, do you have anything to actually contribute to the discussion? In my experience that's not the best way to start a friendly discussion.
Another move to deprive people of something that works going under the radar is the proposal to bin the "bus fair" scheme which placed a cap of £2 (£1.75 in London) on local bus fares. Likely to hit the rural poor hardest, but then they tend to have no union so don't need to be kept sweet.
... and they keep battering at "working people" with the latest proposal to exempt public sector workers from the tax raid on employers' pension contributions.
Another move to deprive people of something that works going under the radar is the proposal to bin the "bus fair" scheme which placed a cap of £2 (£1.75 in London) on local bus fares.
Of course cynics would say that waiting till 2022 to introduce it after years of soaring fares and running down rural bus services was the kind of measure you put in place before an election so you can then raise the bogeyman of the opposition removing the subsidy.
From what I can see it was due to end in December 2024. I can't find anything about any decisions over its future.
I can't figure out what the relationship between "working people" and "public sector workers" is, other than that the latter is a subset of the former.
We are paid out of everyone's taxes, so whether the state pays *itself* more re pension contributions is frankly a bit of a nonsense.
If they did, they would simply be slightly cutting the frontline services budget by slightly increasing the pay spend - which they then either do or don't offset by slightly increasing the overall budget or not.
The Public School tax could have legal problems. The up shot is that picking the age of 19 and wording it the way they have could be seen as going against the protected status of age. It could also lead to tax being paid on university fees for 18 year olds.
As well as this lots of public schools have charitable status.
Most are not full of posh kids who parents are wealthy. Most are funded by hard working parents and sometimes with contributions from grandparents. Thus affecting hard working parents this government seems do fond of.
The policy will need a long hard review if they intend to carry it forward
Another move to deprive people of something that works going under the radar is the proposal to bin the "bus fair" scheme which placed a cap of £2 (£1.75 in London) on local bus fares. Likely to hit the rural poor hardest, but then they tend to have no union so don't need to be kept sweet.
... and they keep battering at "working people" with the latest proposal to exempt public sector workers from the tax raid on employers' pension contributions.
They might as well. It would just be like taking money out of one pocket to put in to another pocket
The Public School tax could have legal problems. The up shot is that picking the age of 19 and wording it the way they have could be seen as going against the protected status of age. It could also lead to tax being paid on university fees for 18 year olds.
As well as this lots of public schools have charitable status.
Most are not full of posh kids who parents are wealthy. Most are funded by hard working parents and sometimes with contributions from grandparents. Thus affecting hard working parents this government seems do fond of.
The policy will need a long hard review if they intend to carry it forward
Another move to deprive people of something that works going under the radar is the proposal to bin the "bus fair" scheme which placed a cap of £2 (£1.75 in London) on local bus fares. Likely to hit the rural poor hardest, but then they tend to have no union so don't need to be kept sweet.
... and they keep battering at "working people" with the latest proposal to exempt public sector workers from the tax raid on employers' pension contributions.
They might as well. It would just be like taking money out of one pocket to put in to another pocket
The Public School tax could have legal problems. The up shot is that picking the age of 19 and wording it the way they have could be seen as going against the protected status of age. It could also lead to tax being paid on university fees for 18 year olds.
As well as this lots of public schools have charitable status.
Most are not full of posh kids who parents are wealthy. Most are funded by hard working parents and sometimes with contributions from grandparents. Thus affecting hard working parents this government seems do fond of.
The policy will need a long hard review if they intend to carry it forward
The politics of envy does not consider the cost
Yes, that's the usual libel against anyone wanting a fairer, more just and equitable society
Another move to deprive people of something that works going under the radar is the proposal to bin the "bus fair" scheme which placed a cap of £2 (£1.75 in London) on local bus fares. Likely to hit the rural poor hardest, but then they tend to have no union so don't need to be kept sweet.
... and they keep battering at "working people" with the latest proposal to exempt public sector workers from the tax raid on employers' pension contributions.
They might as well. It would just be like taking money out of one pocket to put in to another pocket
The Public School tax could have legal problems. The up shot is that picking the age of 19 and wording it the way they have could be seen as going against the protected status of age. It could also lead to tax being paid on university fees for 18 year olds.
As well as this lots of public schools have charitable status.
Most are not full of posh kids who parents are wealthy. Most are funded by hard working parents and sometimes with contributions from grandparents. Thus affecting hard working parents this government seems do fond of.
The policy will need a long hard review if they intend to carry it forward
The politics of envy does not consider the cost
Yes, that's the usual libel against anyone wanting a fairer, more just and equitable society
Translation.....Let's drag everyone down to our level.
Another move to deprive people of something that works going under the radar is the proposal to bin the "bus fair" scheme which placed a cap of £2 (£1.75 in London) on local bus fares. Likely to hit the rural poor hardest, but then they tend to have no union so don't need to be kept sweet.
... and they keep battering at "working people" with the latest proposal to exempt public sector workers from the tax raid on employers' pension contributions.
They might as well. It would just be like taking money out of one pocket to put in to another pocket
The Public School tax could have legal problems. The up shot is that picking the age of 19 and wording it the way they have could be seen as going against the protected status of age. It could also lead to tax being paid on university fees for 18 year olds.
As well as this lots of public schools have charitable status.
Most are not full of posh kids who parents are wealthy. Most are funded by hard working parents and sometimes with contributions from grandparents. Thus affecting hard working parents this government seems do fond of.
The policy will need a long hard review if they intend to carry it forward
The politics of envy does not consider the cost
Yes, that's the usual libel against anyone wanting a fairer, more just and equitable society
Translation.....Let's drag everyone down to our level.
Mistranslation. It’s more like let’s not leave anyone dragging along in the mud, and let’s lift as many as high as we can.
The Public School tax could have legal problems. The up shot is that picking the age of 19 and wording it the way they have could be seen as going against the protected status of age. It could also lead to tax being paid on university fees for 18 year olds.
As well as this lots of public schools have charitable status.
Most are not full of posh kids who parents are wealthy. Most are funded by hard working parents and sometimes with contributions from grandparents. Thus affecting hard working parents this government seems do fond of.
The policy will need a long hard review if they intend to carry it forward
Public schools are most definitely chock full off the posh kids of the very wealthy. The wider independent sector is still mostly the kids of the well-off, because unless you are well-off you can't come close to affording the fees. People who claim otherwise haven't a damn clue what a typical household income looks like for a family with kids. Most families are working hard just to keep a roof over their heads and pay the bills, so spare me the sobs of those who might have to skip Jocasta's second ski trip to cover the increase in fees.
The Public School tax could have legal problems. The up shot is that picking the age of 19 and wording it the way they have could be seen as going against the protected status of age. It could also lead to tax being paid on university fees for 18 year olds.
As well as this lots of public schools have charitable status.
Most are not full of posh kids who parents are wealthy. Most are funded by hard working parents and sometimes with contributions from grandparents. Thus affecting hard working parents this government seems do fond of.
The policy will need a long hard review if they intend to carry it forward
Public schools are most definitely chock full off the posh kids of the very wealthy. The wider independent sector is still mostly the kids of the well-off, because unless you are well-off you can't come close to affording the fees. People who claim otherwise haven't a damn clue what a typical household income looks like for a family with kids. Most families are working hard just to keep a roof over their heads and pay the bills, so spare me the sobs of those who might have to skip Jocasta's second ski trip to cover the increase in fees.
Exactly this. I attended one of these places (long story) on a bursary and after the "sacrifices" the boys on full fees' parents made, they still had a lifestyle I could only dream of. And we weren't 'not a pot to piss in' poor either.
Another move to deprive people of something that works going under the radar is the proposal to bin the "bus fair" scheme which placed a cap of £2 (£1.75 in London) on local bus fares. Likely to hit the rural poor hardest, but then they tend to have no union so don't need to be kept sweet.
... and they keep battering at "working people" with the latest proposal to exempt public sector workers from the tax raid on employers' pension contributions.
They might as well. It would just be like taking money out of one pocket to put in to another pocket
The Public School tax could have legal problems. The up shot is that picking the age of 19 and wording it the way they have could be seen as going against the protected status of age. It could also lead to tax being paid on university fees for 18 year olds.
As well as this lots of public schools have charitable status.
Most are not full of posh kids who parents are wealthy. Most are funded by hard working parents and sometimes with contributions from grandparents. Thus affecting hard working parents this government seems do fond of.
The policy will need a long hard review if they intend to carry it forward
The politics of envy does not consider the cost
Yes, that's the usual libel against anyone wanting a fairer, more just and equitable society
Translation.....Let's drag everyone down to our level.
Mistranslation. It’s more like let’s not leave anyone dragging along in the mud, and let’s lift as many as high as we can.
Education is free in this country to age 18. They’re only taxing paying for education.
and the people they are taxing have already been taxed to pay for the education of others. The people they want to tax extra are helping the state system
I forget the details, but there is also a mismatch between the current VAT treatment of state and independent schools, which is madness, unless you think that 20% of all state school funding other than wages should be recovered that way. And then there's the tax and NI on the wages of course.
The Public School tax could have legal problems. The up shot is that picking the age of 19 and wording it the way they have could be seen as going against the protected status of age. It could also lead to tax being paid on university fees for 18 year olds.
As well as this lots of public schools have charitable status.
Most are not full of posh kids who parents are wealthy. Most are funded by hard working parents and sometimes with contributions from grandparents. Thus affecting hard working parents this government seems do fond of.
The policy will need a long hard review if they intend to carry it forward
Public schools are most definitely chock full off the posh kids of the very wealthy. The wider independent sector is still mostly the kids of the well-off, because unless you are well-off you can't come close to affording the fees. People who claim otherwise haven't a damn clue what a typical household income looks like for a family with kids. Most families are working hard just to keep a roof over their heads and pay the bills, so spare me the sobs of those who might have to skip Jocasta's second ski trip to cover the increase in fees.
I am known on here for my left leaning and am not a fan of private education. I was just going by what I had read and seen while delving into the subject. If my conclusions are not accurate then OK hands up.
The wording of the bill does need reviewing. The charitable status of some of these institutions could scupper the bill. Currently the bill is set to tax paying education institutions for those up to the age of 18. Universities are fee paying education institutions and the first year of uni is generally 18. The bill has not been thought through properly. I believe there is a Go Fund Me page for legal battles against the gov on this. There is going to be serious opposition.
That the enormously wealthy squeal when their privileges are threatened is not a surprise. It's recognisable from the ban on hunting with dogs. I'm amazed they need to crowd fund though - surely there are enough lawyers with kids in private schools to do the work pro bono?
Education is free in this country to age 18. They’re only taxing paying for education.
and the people they are taxing have already been taxed to pay for the education of others.
If they choose to use alternate provision rather than the state provided version which is open to them they are free to do so.
In the same way that some people choose to pay extra to use private medical facilities.
and these people should also be encouraged rather than discouraged to take the pressure off the NHS
It doesn't take pressure off the NHS for staff to be working elsewhere.
Indeed. It's one of the great myths of private healthcare in the UK. Not the only one, either.
The private sector does no training in medicine, nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, clinical science, pathology, radiography etc. Have a guess where all the staff working in the private sector get their training?
To a large extent, private healthcare has a parasitic relationship with the NHS.
That the enormously wealthy squeal when their privileges are threatened is not a surprise. It's recognisable from the ban on hunting with dogs. I'm amazed they need to crowd fund though - surely there are enough lawyers with kids in private schools to do the work pro bono?
Perhaps it’s one of those irregular verbs - I protest, you challenge, they squeal…
Not that you can tell by the way our media continues to cover this government, but I'll save that for one of the other threads.
This is a really big deal. Quite apart from whatever else is in the budget this means a big increase in capital spending for investment. (Probably).
Now, I am not an economist, just an interested amateur but I know a bit about this and this is an important change. It is not however as good as it could be. From an economic point of view it is a big step in the right direction but not going as far as it really should. Mostly I suspect because of political constraints.
I will leave the discussion of fiscal rules themselves for the moment, except to say that a bad fiscal rule is worse than no rule.
The principle here is that generally speaking a government should borrow for capital spending and where possible, not borrow for day to day spending. There are two traps here. The first is that borrowing for day to day spending is always necessary at times. Gordon Brown's rule was to balance this over the economic cycle. Borrow in the bad years, run a surplus (in expenditure) in the good years. The other trap which Osborne embraced and Hunt fell in to is cutting back on capital spending to balance an expenditure deficit.
The one thing we really, really need right now (from an economic perspective) is capital investment.
The good news here is that Reeves is signalling an intention to increase capital spending. Commentators have suggested that the reason for announcing it now, in advance of the budget is so that she has the evidence that this will not scare the markets prior to the budget itself.
So that's the good.
The bad is that it doesn't go far enough. However, I think Reeves is ever conscious of the fact that Labour must always fight the myths around economic competence and thus politically she is restrained to be more cautious than a Tory chancellor would need to be.
There are other hints around various tax rises that I also find encouraging. However in terms on long-term prosperity for the UK, this is the announcement that matters. The question will be how much investment the government is prepared to put in. This will be the real measure of this budget.
Comments
Except in their follow-up article this is exactly how the Telegraph describe it:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/19/state-powers-benefit-fraud-crackdown/
Now you could say that this is all spin (in the same way as you you described their followup on Streeting's column), but that raises the question of exactly why the government is happy to put out exclusive content for an outlet which habitually misrepresents their policies.
It's a Telegraph story. I want to know what's in the bill. Nothing more, nothing less.
The source has a long track-record of misrepresenting the situation. So it is not a reliable indication of the upcoming legislation.
As you have noticed, I am being very particular about what government ministers have actually said, compared to what various sources claim it means.
The question of which publications government ministers decide to write for to get information out is an entirely separate one. An interesting and important one indeed but you are conflating two things. Essentially you are saying because the Telegraph puts a particular interpretation on certain things, government ministers must be endorsing that interpretation when writing these articles. That doesn't hold at all. I would love government ministers to never write for The Mail, The Express, The Sun or the Telegraph, but that's a different debate.
It's interesting that they put a £7Bn figure on fraud. I need to have a look at that. That's about three times the historic level so it may well be there's a growing problem to be addressed here. Again, until I see it from a trustworthy source, I'm not going to take it at face value.
AFZ
Alternatively you are holding things to be separate when they are linked. This isn't a purely technocratic decision, it's based on working relationships between the ministers or their senior advisors with parts of the press (not everything is as blatant as Kuenssberg's reporting on the Johnson era Tories).
No. I'm not saying that at all; Rather each newspaper speaks to a particular audience, the government knows how a particular paper is going interpret a particular policy and/or which aspects of a particular policy they'd emphasize. Whether those are distortions or not they've calculated that the combination serves their purpose.
This is a fairly basic extrapolation of the issues mentioned in that other thread, this too is media literacy.
Help me out here, how is that not a distinction without a difference?
There's no clean (and technocratic) line to be drawn between the presence of their column in a particular newspaper and the coverage of issues in the rest of the paper, rather their column is where it is precisely because of that coverage.
Right so you are saying that by putting a column in said paper, the minister is endorsing how it's reported. Moreover you are implying that the reporting is 'really what the minister is saying.'
I am disagreeing.
Ironically those are two different things which you are conflating. Yes, the minister is absolutely endorsing how it's being reported, because they are signalling their allegiances in the choice of outlet. No, that isn't necessarily what the minister 'is really saying', but it serves their purpose to have another article in the same paper report on 'what they are really saying' (whether that's real or imagined).
[It's also stupid and short-sighted if you are even vaguely on the left or even the centre, because every issue ends up being framed in increasingly reactionary terms].
So you're saying that they want that particular spin?
I'm just trying to understand your point.
In terms of Streeting's article and the policy in question. What is being reported is a world away from the actual policy (at this stage). Now it may well be that Wes wants to go in a particular direction and I will unequivocally criticise attempts to coerce people into work. I always have. However, the specific policy in question is literally a trial of a treatment which as his article says will benefit health and have additional economic benefits as well if it's as effective as hoped. Nothing about that is untrue.
All I am doing in both cases is assessing the policy position based on the facts as they currently are.
You seem to be saying because the ministers write about it in particular papers the policies are bad.... You are clinging to odd distinctions that make no sense to me. Unless you are arguing not so much with the policy but with the decision to seek a right-wing spin on such policy which is an interesting political discussion about tactics. But I don't think that's what you're saying at all.
AFZ
Absolutely; and the idea that this is a process that will be perfectly insulated from actual policy is for the birds.
Following a pilot study in 1999, The government introduced a bus lane on the M4 near Heathrow in 2001. It was scrapped in 2010.
When I heard about this policy I rolled my eyes. A bus lane on the motorway? Come on be serious, that's the triumph of ideology over common sense surely? Ok. so I supported the then government overall but would not have defended this policy. It was slaughtered in the media. Not least because it's occupancy was so low. The lane was mostly empty, most of the time.
I only found this out subsequently but it was a good policy. It improved journey times for cars! and reduced CO2 emissions by 16%.
I could just leave it there. It is a stark contrast between what is reported and what is actually going on. There are lots of other examples but this is one of the simplest to explain. This is why I am so picky about details of policy. And why I am very careful to not form a view based solely on what's reported. HS2 is not about journey times from London to Birmingham, it's all about rail capacity.
The key here is that it is not about buses at all. It is all about traffic flow.
In west London, the M4 has an elevated section that is only 2 lanes. Realistically this is not going to change. The financial costs would be huge and a large number of homes and businesses would have to be demolished to make this happen. Between junctions 3 and 2 in an Eastbound direction (into London) the motorway therefore has to go from three lanes to two lanes.
Even if drivers behaved perfectly (which they so often don't in these situations) traffic flow still behaves much like flow-mechanics and there is an inevitable bottleneck which causes significant rush-hour delays.
Theoretically, because of where the traffic is joining and leaving etc. it could be the case that moving the reduction from three lanes to two back a bit (i.e. in this case to Junction 3) could improve the flow. In means that traffic joining the M4 eastbound at junction 3 joins a two lane roadway rather than merging into three and then being reduced in a few miles. An 18-month trial showed that in real-world conditions this was indeed the case. By closing 3.5 miles of the outside lane and making the 2 lane section start at junction 3, travel times and congestion were improved.
That's it, that's what the policy was all about.
Of course, you could just leave that 3.5m section of tarmac closed off but actually it's an added bonus to make it available to buses etc. travelling into London from Heathrow.
Hence it is a good policy:
1. It improves the public transport system
2. It improves congestion
3. It improves journey times for car drivers
4. It reduces CO2 emissions
5. It costs virtually nothing
On the other hand, it was really easy for the media to paint it as another war on the motorist story.
Ok, end of tangent but my point is a simple one and I think is totally relevant to many of our current discussions. I will criticise the government for policies that do harm. However, I am really bored of arguments about what the government is supposedly doing when it's a report of what they might be doing. I am only interested in the reality and details of the policy.* The health secretary wrote an article about a real-world trial about obesity treatment that if it works as hoped will improve health for many. And would also have economic benefits in terms of a reduction in NHS demand and a likely reduction in sick leave and some people being able to get back to work. Literally, that is what he said in his article, nothing more, nothing less.
We could have a constructive article about this policy position but instead it's been all about how the evil government is trying to force people to have injections to make them get back to work. Why? Because that's what everyone is saying they really mean.
I will not take the government at their word if the legislation and actual policies do not live up to what they claim. However, I will not vilify them for what an unreliable source says their policy is when said claim is demonstrably different to what they actually announced.
AFZ
*OK, that's not 100% true as government rhetoric is also important as it frames the debate, so I'm a little hyperbolic here.
I'd be more sympathetic to that argument if I could just find the hundreds of posts on here extending the same courtesy to the previous government in the first 6 months after the 2010 election (or the first 6 months after 2015 when the Tories governed alone)
Inundated we were, with posts saying 'ignore the papers, let's wait to see what they do!'
Not an accurate comparison. The 2010 government enjoyed a plurality of cheer-leading media and a quiescent BBC who were happy to propagate the myth that austerity was necessary despite well over 90% of economists begging the government not to be so foolish.
Moreover, Osborne's budget was within a month or so of the election and the criticism was exactly on point.
This government is being attacked from both left and right for distortions of what they've said. It may be the case that the critics are right but at the moment it's a helluva lot of jumping to conclusions and/or putting 2 and 2 together and making 168.
Well yes, and you understand this principle when it comes to arguing about a topic that matters to you (I wonder how often you've read the disability news services's coverage of Kendall and Streeting for instance?)
As I recall, in 2010 most posters here were in favour - however reluctantly - of austerity, having largely bought the framing of the press, and those of arguing against it were a very small and beleaguered minority.
Ok. So is your point that the government is responsible for the framing of the debate because of where they chose to write about it?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say yes, that's one of my points. Given the 'Hero Voter' strategy of their faction of the party it's hard not see it as entirely deliberate - and they've not been beyond being explicit about it ("drum-banging, finger-wagging extremists")
Ok. How would you put it?
I'm trying to be as specific as possible because previously you've indicated that I was misunderstanding what you are saying.
I did not exaggerate. There are indeed millions of cars in the country. You clearly couldn't even be arsed to read the link, and are even more clearly avoiding actually addressing the issue.
You're not trying to catch someone out in an interview room now, sunshine.
Again, do you have any useful contribution to this discussion?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? How can I discuss anything with anyone who seizes on irrelevant interpretations of posts even when they've been fully explained rather than posting anything even vaguely relevant to the point?
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
... and they keep battering at "working people" with the latest proposal to exempt public sector workers from the tax raid on employers' pension contributions.
Of course cynics would say that waiting till 2022 to introduce it after years of soaring fares and running down rural bus services was the kind of measure you put in place before an election so you can then raise the bogeyman of the opposition removing the subsidy.
I can't figure out what the relationship between "working people" and "public sector workers" is, other than that the latter is a subset of the former.
If they did, they would simply be slightly cutting the frontline services budget by slightly increasing the pay spend - which they then either do or don't offset by slightly increasing the overall budget or not.
As well as this lots of public schools have charitable status.
Most are not full of posh kids who parents are wealthy. Most are funded by hard working parents and sometimes with contributions from grandparents. Thus affecting hard working parents this government seems do fond of.
The policy will need a long hard review if they intend to carry it forward
The politics of envy does not consider the cost
Yes, that's the usual libel against anyone wanting a fairer, more just and equitable society
Translation.....Let's drag everyone down to our level.
Public schools are most definitely chock full off the posh kids of the very wealthy. The wider independent sector is still mostly the kids of the well-off, because unless you are well-off you can't come close to affording the fees. People who claim otherwise haven't a damn clue what a typical household income looks like for a family with kids. Most families are working hard just to keep a roof over their heads and pay the bills, so spare me the sobs of those who might have to skip Jocasta's second ski trip to cover the increase in fees.
Exactly this. I attended one of these places (long story) on a bursary and after the "sacrifices" the boys on full fees' parents made, they still had a lifestyle I could only dream of. And we weren't 'not a pot to piss in' poor either.
If they choose to use alternate provision rather than the state provided version which is open to them they are free to do so.
In the same way that some people choose to pay extra to use private medical facilities.
It doesn't take pressure off the NHS for staff to be working elsewhere.
I am known on here for my left leaning and am not a fan of private education. I was just going by what I had read and seen while delving into the subject. If my conclusions are not accurate then OK hands up.
The wording of the bill does need reviewing. The charitable status of some of these institutions could scupper the bill. Currently the bill is set to tax paying education institutions for those up to the age of 18. Universities are fee paying education institutions and the first year of uni is generally 18. The bill has not been thought through properly. I believe there is a Go Fund Me page for legal battles against the gov on this. There is going to be serious opposition.
Indeed. It's one of the great myths of private healthcare in the UK. Not the only one, either.
The private sector does no training in medicine, nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, clinical science, pathology, radiography etc. Have a guess where all the staff working in the private sector get their training?
To a large extent, private healthcare has a parasitic relationship with the NHS.
AFZ
Perhaps it’s one of those irregular verbs - I protest, you challenge, they squeal…
Reeves Announces New Fiscal Rules
Not that you can tell by the way our media continues to cover this government, but I'll save that for one of the other threads.
This is a really big deal. Quite apart from whatever else is in the budget this means a big increase in capital spending for investment. (Probably).
Now, I am not an economist, just an interested amateur but I know a bit about this and this is an important change. It is not however as good as it could be. From an economic point of view it is a big step in the right direction but not going as far as it really should. Mostly I suspect because of political constraints.
I will leave the discussion of fiscal rules themselves for the moment, except to say that a bad fiscal rule is worse than no rule.
The principle here is that generally speaking a government should borrow for capital spending and where possible, not borrow for day to day spending. There are two traps here. The first is that borrowing for day to day spending is always necessary at times. Gordon Brown's rule was to balance this over the economic cycle. Borrow in the bad years, run a surplus (in expenditure) in the good years. The other trap which Osborne embraced and Hunt fell in to is cutting back on capital spending to balance an expenditure deficit.
The one thing we really, really need right now (from an economic perspective) is capital investment.
The good news here is that Reeves is signalling an intention to increase capital spending. Commentators have suggested that the reason for announcing it now, in advance of the budget is so that she has the evidence that this will not scare the markets prior to the budget itself.
So that's the good.
The bad is that it doesn't go far enough. However, I think Reeves is ever conscious of the fact that Labour must always fight the myths around economic competence and thus politically she is restrained to be more cautious than a Tory chancellor would need to be.
There are other hints around various tax rises that I also find encouraging. However in terms on long-term prosperity for the UK, this is the announcement that matters. The question will be how much investment the government is prepared to put in. This will be the real measure of this budget.
AFZ
P.S. Because I am not an economist, I checked my thinking with an actual expert - you can follow the conversation on Twitter here: https://x.com/alienfromzog/status/1849723251032826010