Monday, 11 November 2013
Tuesday, 9 July 2013
Saturday, 22 June 2013
Sunday, 16 June 2013
New US Government and Politics blog is go!
http://rwgusapol.blogspot.co.uk/
The old A2 blog was getting a bit big so I've decided to split the American stuff off to its own shiny new blog at the link above. UK stuff will stay on this blog. I will continue to run both blogs. All of my A2 students should sign up for updates from both blogs.
The old A2 blog was getting a bit big so I've decided to split the American stuff off to its own shiny new blog at the link above. UK stuff will stay on this blog. I will continue to run both blogs. All of my A2 students should sign up for updates from both blogs.
Thursday, 13 June 2013
Tuesday, 11 June 2013
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Lib Dems and some Cons try to force coalition into energy sector targets
From bbc
The government has seen off a rebellion by Lib Dem and Conservative MPs over calls for a carbon emissions target for the energy industry.
Senior Tory backbencher Tim Yeo sought to amend the coalition's Energy Bill to set a "decarbonisation" target for the power sector by 2030.
But MPs rejected the move by 290 votes to 267 after a Commons debate.
Ministers say the target would place too many restrictions on business at a time of economic difficulty.
The issue has divided the coalition partners, with environmental campaigners arguing it shows David Cameron's pledge to lead "the greenest government ever" has not been fulfilled.
'Greater clarity'
Mr Yeo's amendment, calling for a decarbonisation "target range" to be set by April 2014, attracted support from a handful of Lib Dem and Conservative MPs as the government's majority was cut to 23.
Mr Yeo told the Commons that a target would not add a "single penny" to energy bills for the next seven years and delaying the decision would create uncertainty about the government's intentions.
In a statement after the vote, he said future governments could face "more costly action to curb emissions when the impacts of a changing climate become more acute".
In a message on Twitter after the vote, Labour leader Ed Miliband said it was a "huge missed opportunity" and suggested many Lib Dem MPs had failed to back their own party policy.
Party activists at last September's Lib Dem conference overwhelmingly backed the 2030 target but it was not binding on the government.
If it had been passed, the amendment would have ensured that almost all electricity was generated from carbon-free sources like wind and nuclear by 2030.
The government says it has the power to include a target in future secondary legislation but will only consider whether to do this after deciding its next carbon budget, covering the 2028-2032 period.
This will not happen until after the scheduled date of the election in 2015.
Speaking in Tuesday's debate, Energy Minister Michael Fallon urged MPs not to rely on "blind faith" and vote for "decarbonisation by dogma or default".
He suggested a legally binding target could potentially force some generating plants out of business and drive up costs for those industries struggling to compete against lower energy costs abroad.
Legally binding
The UK has legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2020 and 2050 but no specific target relating to emissions or the energy mix for 2030.
The Committee on Climate Change, which advises the government on its carbon budgets, has also backed such a move but Conservative MPs question the extra costs it would place on business and consumers.
Writing on the Conservative Home website, former energy minister Charles Hendry described the target as "a lofty ambition" but questioned whether it could be delivered.
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas argued that a target was crucial if the UK was "serious about securing a global deal on climate change".
Few leading industrialised economies have similar carbon targets and the CBI employers' group said they were not central to pressing investment decisions needed to keep the UK's energy supply on track.
But Friends of the Earth said a "clean power" target would help tackle climate change, create thousands of jobs and save householders billions of pounds.
The Energy Bill aims to move the UK's energy production from a dependence on fossil fuels to a more diverse mix of energy sources, such as wind, nuclear and biomass.
Friday, 31 May 2013
Video: Watch quick - available until 3rd June: Can UK afford the NHS?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b020svhc/?t=15m16s
Thursday, 30 May 2013
Monday, 27 May 2013
Environment synopticity
http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/26/green-campaigners-attack-government-climate-change
Thursday, 23 May 2013
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Monday, 20 May 2013
Welfare synopticity: How far are benefit cuts damaging to the economy?
If you are retaking unit 3 - read this. It summarises many of the different viewpoints on benefits. It is critical of the Coalition (hardly suprising as it is the New Statesman), but from interesting and unusual perspectives. It manages to be critical of both benefits and cutting benefits.
e.g.
Unemployment benefits play a crucial role in allowing people time to search, not just for any job, but for the right job – one that puts their skills and experience to the best use. Not only is this good for the jobseeker but it benefits the employer and makes the economy more productive. Higher benefits for skilled workers also facilitate a more flexible workforce. By cushioning the social consequences of redundancy, they oil the wheels of economic change.
e.g.
Unemployment benefits play a crucial role in allowing people time to search, not just for any job, but for the right job – one that puts their skills and experience to the best use. Not only is this good for the jobseeker but it benefits the employer and makes the economy more productive. Higher benefits for skilled workers also facilitate a more flexible workforce. By cushioning the social consequences of redundancy, they oil the wheels of economic change.
April 2013: NHS reforms: From today the Coalition has put the NHS up for grabs - Telegraph
NHS reforms: From today the Coalition has put the NHS up for grabs - Telegraph: "What was now clear was that the regulations effectively forced CCGs to put all services out to tender to the private sector and forbade them to favour the NHS as the provider.
After a public outcry and criticism from the House of Lords at the way the Government had slipped in the Section 75 regulations at the eleventh hour, Hunt had them hastily rewritten. But most experts agree that there was no meaningful change. GPs are allowed to keep some services within the NHS, but only in particular circumstances, such as when no private sector provider comes forward to bid. Everything else is up for grabs. It will take time for this change to slowly spread throughout our healthcare system, but it will."
'via Blog this'
After a public outcry and criticism from the House of Lords at the way the Government had slipped in the Section 75 regulations at the eleventh hour, Hunt had them hastily rewritten. But most experts agree that there was no meaningful change. GPs are allowed to keep some services within the NHS, but only in particular circumstances, such as when no private sector provider comes forward to bid. Everything else is up for grabs. It will take time for this change to slowly spread throughout our healthcare system, but it will."
'via Blog this'
Friday, 17 May 2013
Friday, 10 May 2013
Benghazi probe is more than just an attack against Hillary Clinton | James Antle | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Benghazi probe is more than just an attack against Hillary Clinton | James Antle | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk: "Did the White House want to avoid any perception that a terrorist attack, launched on the anniversary of 9/11, was mishandled as President Obama was running for reelection? Was there too light a military footprint because the earlier campaign for regime change in Libya was sold to the American people as requiring no boots on the ground? Who even knew what, when?"
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
How powerful are US parties?
Good example here of how parties have less power over politicians in US (although this wasn't a Congressional election)
http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/may/08/mark-sanford-south-carolina-election
Saturday, 20 April 2013
How has the coalition reformed welfare?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s02xg
Good stuff in this on welfare reform and benefits and the Thatcher legacy
Good stuff in this on welfare reform and benefits and the Thatcher legacy
Thursday, 4 April 2013
Welfare reform - excellent podcast. Jones vs Young
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/the-view-from-22-north-korea-and-asias-arms-race-and-owen-jones-vs-toby-young/
Listen from 13 mins 20 seconds for a debate that sums up many different points of view on the current issue of welfare reform. Very useful for edexcel unit 3.
Listen from 13 mins 20 seconds for a debate that sums up many different points of view on the current issue of welfare reform. Very useful for edexcel unit 3.
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Saturday, 23 March 2013
To what extent has Cameron been ideologically inconsistent on welfare etc?
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/26933
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
The Morning Plum: What Rand Paul’s filibuster accomplished
The Morning Plum: What Rand Paul’s filibuster accomplished: "rn out of concern about an actual issue — objections to Obama’s approach to drone warfare that are shared on both sides of the aisle. By waging his talking filibuster, Paul gave us a chance to hear his objections and judge their validity. By contrast, the GOP filibuster of Halligan was part of a concerted, party-wide GOP strategy to do everything possible to render government dysfunctional when it comes to even routine business, for purely partisan reasons. The reason Republicans offered for their filibuster — that Halliga"
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Monday, 18 March 2013
Sunday, 17 March 2013
Friday, 15 March 2013
Gender, ethnic makeup of 113 th congress
What the Makeup of Congress Might Say About the Rob Portman Effect http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/03/rob-portman-demographics-113th-congress-charts/63155/
Orwell and the filibuster
George Orwell on the Filibuster http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/george-orwell-on-the-filibuster/274037/
Thursday, 14 March 2013
Thursday, 7 March 2013
Paul's filibuster ends
Senate Approves Nomination Of John Brennan As CIA Chief http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/07/173741820/senate-approves-nomination-of-john-brennan-as-cia-chief
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
Monday, 25 February 2013
Thursday, 7 February 2013
Gove U-Turn on EBC Feb 2013 round up
summary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21363396
expert opinion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19561148
explanation and looking ahead: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21365373
expert opinion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19561148
explanation and looking ahead: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21365373
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
Sunday, 13 January 2013
Saturday, 12 January 2013
"Newt Credits" - from Chappers
The following is an article from The Times, i thought it may be a useful one to send round for the environmental side of the course as it suggests a potentially interesting policy.
‘Newt credits’ could settle environmental disputes
Scheme to offer planners the power to “offset” large infrastructure projects that harm wildlife populations as a way of resolving disputes between developers and opponents.
Communities could be offered “newt credits” to accept new roads, housing and power stations in natural habitats.
Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, said that he wanted to offer planners the power to “offset” large infrastructure projects that harm wildlife populations as a way of resolving disputes between developers and their opponents.
“We need to end this mortar exchange between improving the economy with big infrastructure projects and protecting the environment,” he said in an interview The Times. “We end up having these terribly sterile debates about newts and copses and nothing gets done.”
Under the idea, developers would compensate local people for environmental damage by buying credits to improve the natural habitat elsewhere in the area. Environmental groups that objected to such projects could apply for these credits, which would give them funds to spend on conservation programmes.
“You could use environmental credit on huge projects like high-speed rail or a power station or small ones like a farmer wanting to extend a dairy,” Mr Paterson said. “Usually the poor old newts lose out in the end and only the lawyers win, this way everyone benefits.”
The idea is attributed to Dieter Helm, an economist at the University of Oxford and chairman of the Natural Capital Committee, established in March to advise on the value of Britain’s wildlife habitats.
Environmental groups reacted cautiously to the idea. Ben Stafford, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said that compensating for lost habitat was not always as straightforward as replacing one natural site with another. “There is evidence that compensatory habitat isn’t as good quality as the areas it replaces,” he said. “It might not have the populations of wildlife or the same sort of landscape.”
Executive orders
How far can President Obama go with an executive order on gun control? | Harry J Enten http://gu.com/p/3d2m6
Friday, 11 January 2013
Mid term review Jan 2013 Coalition and Welfare
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20969484
Original coalition agreement pledges:
JOBS AND WELFARE
- Introduce payment-by-results in welfare-to-work
- Make benefits conditional on "willingness to work"
- Re-assess incapacity benefit claims
- Support unemployed people keen to start new businesses
- Simplify the benefits system
- Reforms will save £19bn per year by 2014-15
- Benefits cap to apply from 2013
- Universal Credit to simplify benefits system "radically"
- Number of people on incapacity benefits cut by 145,000
- Jobseeker's Allowance claimants "facing the most significant barriers to work" were to have been put onto the new welfare to work programme "immediately"; this commitment is now to refer them within three months. Similarly, the target for jobseekers under 25 has shifted from six months to nine
- Benefits reforms hitting working people not "scroungers"
- Welfare-to-work programme less effective "than doing nothing"
- Welfare bill £13bn higher than planned
- Universal Credit late and over-budget
- Number of long-term unemployed young people doubled
- "Genuinely ill" people suffering from changes to incapacity benefits
- Push forward with Universal Credit and the Youth Contract
- Introduce the Personal Independence Payment for disabled people
- Provide start-up loans and business mentors to unemployed people
- "Protect key benefits for older people"
BBC business correspondent Jonty Bloom says: Unemployment rose after the coalition came to power but has been falling back recently, and is now at about the same level as at the election. This is quite a surprise with economic growth so slow unemployment would normally have risen much faster. No one is quite sure why it hasn't shot up but despite the government shedding hundreds of thousands of staff in the public sector the private sector has continued to create work.
Mid term review Jan 2013 Coalition and Energy/Climate Change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20969435
Original coalition agreement pledges:
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
- Push for increase in EU emissions reduction target to 30% by 2020
- Generate more energy from renewable sources
- Invest in carbon capture and storage
- Found green investment bank
- Encourage marine energy, and energy from waste through anaerobic digestion
- Block third runway at Heathrow, and expansion of Gatwick and Stansted
- Improve home energy efficiency
- £3bn allocated to new green investment bank
- Energy derived from renewables increasing
- £1bn investment in carbon capture and storage
- The pledge to cut EU emissions by 30% by 2020 has been dropped in favour of getting the EU "back on track" to cutting energy consumption by 20% by 2020
- A planned rise in the renewable energy target has been abandoned
- A commitment to replace air passenger duty with a per-flight tax was axed amid fears about "legality and feasibility"
- "Green financial products" were to have enabled individuals to invest in green infrastructure, but seem to have been severely limited in scope
- Solar power industry hit by changes to feed-in tariffs
- Investment in renewables has halved
- Treble support to low-carbon energy up to 2020
- Invest in gas-fired power and carbon capture and storage projects
- Encourage the exploitation of shale gas
- Clarify rules on tax relief available for North Sea oil and gas decommissioning
- Support investment in renewable energy
- Encourage private-sector investment in nuclear power stations
- Introduce smart meters
- Encourage energy efficiency via the "Green Deal"
- Continue to support the Green Investment Bank.
- Promote electric cars
BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath says: The coalition has tried to square the circle between their need to keep the lights on and their legal commitment to reduce carbon emissions. Thanks to their Energy Bill, people will need to pay more to fund clean power. But they've also signalled a greater reliance on natural gas and have lifted a temporary ban on fracking for shale gas. For critics, this move has undermined claims to be the "greenest government ever".
Mid term review Jan 2013 Coalition and Education
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20969488
Original coalition agreement pledges:
SCHOOLS
- Shake-up of state school system to allow "new providers" to start schools
- Additional funding for schools with poorer pupils
- Help schools to reward good teachers and tackle underperformers
- Anonymity for "teachers accused by pupils"
- Increased flexibility in the exam system
- 80 new "free schools" opened and a further 102 due to open in 2013
- 60% of schools have already become academies or are converting
- The "pupil premium" means that schools receive £623 per pupil on free school meals
- Simplified Ofsted school ratings
- Creation of English Baccalaureate
- Strengthen right of teachers to impose discipline
- GCSE system has been in "chaos"
- New curriculum too "narrow", failing to equip young people for job market
- Government responsible for "biggest cut to education funding since the 1950s"
- Pupil premium to increase to £900 per pupil by 2014
- Extra funding to help 11-year-olds with maths and English
- Funding for a further 100 free schools and academies
- GCSEs to be replaced by English Baccalaureate
- "Restore the reputation" of A-levels
- Performance-related pay scales for teachers
- Expansion of parental choice in special needs education
- Train 2,000 exceptional graduates as teachers by 2016
BBC education correspondent Sean Coughlan says: The promise of new providers and greater school autonomy has seen the emergence of dozens of free schools, with numbers set to rise. These are part of a wider shift away from local authority control of schools, which has seen a majority of secondary schools become academies. The targeting of school funding at deprived children - the pupil premium - has been implemented against a background of tightening budgets.
Mid term review Jan 2013 Coalition and Pensions/Elderly
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20969488
Original coalition agreement pledges:
PENSIONS AND OLDER PEOPLE
- State pension to rise each year by the highest of earnings, prices and 2.5%
- Phase out default retirement age and raise state pension
- Compensate Equitable Life policy holders
- Protect winter fuel allowances, free TV licences, free bus travel, and free eye tests and prescriptions for older people
- "Triple lock" plan on state pension now in place
- State pension age to increase to 66 by 2020 and 68 by 2028
- Age-related universal benefits protected
- Default retirement age abolished
- Payments to Equitable Life policy holders have begun
- Winter fuel allowances being cut
- Pensioners will lose out after tax changes
- Expand automatic enrolment in workplace pensions
- Reform public sector pensions
- Carry through planned changes to state pension age
- Continue to protect age-related universal benefits
- Increase incentives for pension savings
BBC political reporter Justin Parkinson says: The coalition says its changes to the system, including raising the retirement age for men and women, are aimed at making the pensions system "sustainable". The "triple lock" guarantee for increases in payments gets top billing in this section of the audit. The protection of benefits like the winter fuel allowance is vaunted. But there are increasing signs that the universal element of age-related benefits will be targeted after the next election.
Mid term review Jan 2013 Coalition and NHS
NHS
- Increase health spending above inflation every year
- "Stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS"
- Axe a number of health quangos
- Cut administration costs by a third
- GPs to gain role in health service commissioning
- Directly elected members of primary care trust boards
- Patients to be able to choose GP and rate services
- Dementia research to be prioritised
- Health budget increased in real terms in 2011-12, and set to increase every subsequent year
- Transition of commissioning of health services to GP-led groups under way
- Pilot schemes set up in which patients can choose GPS
- Reduced early preventable death from cancer
- The audit is silent on whether there was a real-terms increase in 2010-11
- Since primary care trusts were swiftly abolished, their boards never contained a directly elected element
- Plans to "develop a 24/7 urgent care service in every area of England, including GP out-of-hours services" appear to have been dropped
- Changes amount to "biggest top-down reorganisation of the NHS in its history"
- Reforms will cost £3bn and increase bureaucracy
- NHS spending cut "two years running" and £1bn spent on redundancies
- 7,000 nursing jobs cut since 2010
- Number of patients facing long waits in A&E has doubled
- Increase the health budget in real terms
- Abolish strategic health authorities and primary care trusts from April 2013
- Establish health and well-being boards
- Invest up to £300m over five years in specialised housing for people in need of care
- Introduce a new bowel screening programme
- Regularly check that doctors are fit to carry out their duties
BBC health correspondent Nick Triggle says: In many ways the government's handling of the NHS is a case study in how not to make policy. In opposition the Tories promised no more reorganisation, only to announce one of the biggest overhauls of the health service in its history within months of gaining power. That would have probably been fine if the changes had been wanted by those working in the NHS. But they weren't. In the end the reforms were pushed through and now the focus of NHS staff is back on the day job - treating patients and trying to keep the NHS afloat in the tough economic climate.
Thursday, 10 January 2013
Strivers vs skivers. A false dichotomy?
Skivers v strivers: the argument that pollutes people's minds http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/09/skivers-v-strivers-argument-pollutes
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
Obama's selection 2013
Chuck Hagel: is the enemy of their GOP enemies the Democrats' friend? | Ana Marie Cox http://gu.com/p/3dvj8
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
Universal Benefits - opinion piece in the Times
Thanks to Chappers for sending it through...
Hugo Rifkind in The Times, 8/1/13
My family is a hardworking family. I mean, sure, 50 per cent of us are frankly coasting and don’t even tidy up the Lego box, but the other two of us are in the office five days a week. So I’m pretty sure we qualify. According to the Resolution Foundation, 60 per cent of coalition benefit cuts hit households like mine. And, according to many people, including Ed Miliband and most of the Labour Party, this is bad.
I can’t figure out why. It’s not that I’m saying that they’re wrong. It’s just that I can’t grasp why they think they’re right. Surely you can only be properly annoyed about something if you would be less annoyed about the opposite. Yes? So if “60 per cent of cuts hit working families” is bad, then surely, to Ed Miliband, “60 per cent of cuts hit non-working families” would be better.
Only, I’m not sure it would. In fact, I think it would be worse. Does Labour want the brunt of cuts to fall on people without any other income? Is that what socialism means these days? No. So who should it fall upon? Working people or non-working people? Because it’s got to be one of the two. Because — and I’m sorry to have to point this out, because I fear my tone might be veering towards the patronising — I’m afraid that those are the only sorts of people there are.
Of course, you could say “neither”. You could say that, if the State hasn’t got enough money, rather than cutting any benefits we should simply raise taxes. But in the case of, say, me I don’t really get the point. The particular benefit my own hardworking family is losing is child benefit, which until now has come in at £1,752 a year. Should the State tax me more so that it can keep paying me more? Would that really be sensible? To take a cheque from me every month so that it can afford to give me one back?
Some would say “yes”. Many on the left reckon that it’s vital for me to get money from the State, even if the State has to take it from me first to ensure that I feel an affinity with others who actually need it. The winter fuel allowance, an annual payment of between £200 and £300 that goes to pensioners whether they need it or not, is defended on the same basis. Essentially it’s a bribe, designed to make old folk not mind that they’ve spent their entire working lives paying tax. And it could work, too, but only if we were all faffing morons.
I mean, come on. Who is fooled by this? You want me to feel I’m getting something back for all I put in? Then don’t buy me a handful of discount logs at whatever miserable age it is that you finally let me retire. Buy me a conservatory. Every year. Hell, skip a year and buy me a Porsche.
The pretence that what we get back from the State has any connection to our contribution towards it was threadbare a generation ago and is simply nonsensical now.
If your tax bill came with an itemised statement, it would tell you, roughly, that you work for a fifth of the year paying for other people’s pensions and another fifth paying for their healthcare. And all of this in a country where a future in which other people ultimately pay for your pension and healthcare seems pretty damn tenuous. For another couple of months, more or less, your tax pays for miscellaneous benefits — jobseekers, disability and all the rest.
This is not a whinge. I’m not really complaining about my tax bill, because I’m well aware of how deeply fortunate I am to be earning enough to have one that makes me quite so miserable.
But I would like some consensus, philosophically speaking, about what is going on here. Am I supposed to feel proud about paying tax? Are those who currently need all those pensions, benefits and healthcare supposed to spend their days feeling grateful towards me that I do? The former seems to be a yes, the latter a big no. But doesn’t one entail the other? Why does nobody talk about the fundamentals? How can we hope to have a sensible conversation about tax and benefits if we can’t even talk about that?
The trouble is, different people see the fundamentals in fundamentally different ways. Rigorous left-wing thought would hold that the State has a claim on all my money, is doing me a favour to the extent that it doesn’t take it and has to reallocate some of my own money back to me as child benefit, otherwise I might forget that it basically owned my children, too.
Rigorous right-wing thought, meanwhile, would hold that the State is doing the hungry an enormous favour when it pays for their food and that they ought to exist in a state of extreme gratitude that it does so. Bailing out the poor in this respect is regarded as a bit like bailing out the banks — neither have a right to expect it, but both would cause no end of problems if they truly went to the wall.
Most of our views on tax and benefits squat incoherently and inconsistently somewhere on the spectrum between the two. Mine certainly do. But nobody ever starts there when they have an argument. Mr Miliband thinks that benefits should rise with inflation, but doesn’t say why. George Osborne thinks that they shouldn’t, but he doesn’t quite say why, either.
Never mind the nuts and bolts of thresholds and who should face more or fewer cuts. We’ll get to that. First, I want to know what life Mr Osborne believes the State should provide for those unable or unwilling to provide one for themselves. Then I want to know what Mr Miliband believes. Should every day on benefits hurt or not? Should jobs be a goal or a necessity? Do you, bluntly, think that a non-working family should have a quality of life that matches that of a working family?
Personally, I don’t really think they should. But I don’t imagine they often have that currently anyway. Probably it’s good to support working families but I don’t think the State should worry too much about supporting mine, because frankly we’re lucky enough to be supporting ourselves. But there’s Labour arguing that I should have money when I don’t need it, so that I don’t mind it also going to people who do need it, which is something that I don’t for a moment mind anyway.
I’m lost in tricks and point-scoring. I want to know what these people really think. George, park your shirkers or strivers. Ed, don’t tell me a story about your Dad, or where you went to school. Just come clean, because I simply don’t believe you’re as confused about this as I am. Show me your first principles. And after that all the other things you say about benefits will start to sound like more than partisan shouting. Because right now, they really don’t.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)