# War on the poor



## FM001 (Apr 1, 2013)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-launch-devastating-25billion-1795655


----------



## ypauly (Apr 1, 2013)

The last government and probably helped by the one before made people dependent on benefits, ending that dependency will be hard but necessary. Work helps people in so many ways wether that be financially or in terms of self asteeem or general health, it must be a good thing.
  Like somebody once said "no pain no gain" and getting control over welfare to ensure that it is there as a safety net for generations to come is also important, we don't want to be in a greece/cyprus position where some eurocrat decides that no welfare payments will be made until the nations debts are paid all because we lost control.


----------



## FM001 (Apr 1, 2013)

There just enough jobs to solve the problem and even though I agree that work does boost ones self esteem, the churches speaking out about how the austerity cuts are hitting the poorest the hardest said it all as its them and charities who people turn to when they are desperate and have little to live on.

In yesterdays Independent there was good article where the controversial bedroom tax was discussed, the paragraph below this will tell anyone that its totally unjustified and simply will not work and its just another attempt at penalising those on benefits, its penalising the poor who are in no position to move as there's not enough social housing available with fewer bedrooms.

Responses from 37 authorities across Britain revealed 96,041 households faced losing benefit but there were only 3,688 smaller homes available. The shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne said: ?These shocking new figures reveal the big lie behind this Government?s cruel bedroom tax.?


----------



## Northerner (Apr 1, 2013)

My problem with all this is the demonising of everyone on benefits, whereas in reality most are 'hard-working families'. There's little opportunity for people to improve their lot, either by finding better jobs or extra hours, or finding smaller places to live within the communities they depend upon for so many other things. Of course, if people are forced to move they will have no choice but to move into the private sector where it will cost the government more, so nothing will be gained. The government is not offering any alternatives to people, simply taking money away and poisoning the public with vague pronouncements. All these moves are not genuinely trying to help society, they are political moves. The government won't tax those who really could stand the loss i.e. rich pensioners or people getting 40% tax relief on pension investments because they are the people more likely to vote in an elextion and they daren't risk alienating them.


----------



## AlisonM (Apr 1, 2013)

I'm on benefits. I've worked hard all my life and, like most paid my taxes like a good little citizen (or rather subject). Until I fell on hard times and got sick. Even then, I managed to find a little job part-time that I loved. Now though, I am unable to do even that much and am having to fight tooth and nail for what I am entitled to, having paid in all those years. Surely that cash should be there when I, and those like me, need it? I am not a scrounger, I never have been and I deeply resent the characterisation. 

*[rant]*There are scroungers, we all know there are, but in spite of what certain folk would have us believe, they are in a minority. Rather than punish those responsible for the financial crisis we're in (greedy bankers, government mismanagement and 'blind eye' syndrome) they pick on the most vulnerable, those who often unable to fight back, the easy targets.

It's happened before and, no doubt, it will again. My ancestors, including Keir Hardie and John MacLean fought for the rights of working folk, fought for the right to vote, a decent wage, for universal health care and education for all. Both grandfathers went on the hunger marches in the early twentieth century, one was Labour and one a Tory, polar opposites but I have huge respect for both as they stood up to be counted when it really mattered. I'm sure, many of you out there can say the same of your own ancestors. We are in grave danger now of losing everything they fought so hard to win for us. 

People complain about the government, but how many actually went out to vote last time, because it as inconvenient, or they couldn't be bothered? How many 20 and 30 somethings are out there who have never voted because it doesn't seem relevant to them? Well, I have news for you. *You get what you vote for!* And if you don't vote, you get what other people vote for, a marriage made in hell and no-one to blame but yourselves. I was taught voting is a privilege and not a right, use it or lose it. I grew up in the 60s and 70s, the protest generation, we were always protesting about something and it often worked. I have always voted and always will as long as I have any sense left. If you want things to change, you must too. It's the very least you can do.*[/rant]*


----------



## cherrypie (Apr 1, 2013)

When I was a kid, there were workhouses.  They were nothing like the portrayal in Dickens but were for families who were destitute.  The sexes were segregated there and I sometimes think that we will see them again the way things are going.

This article that I posted the other day is worth a read., 

"The Poor Spend all the Money.  Isn't it obvious?
It's a tricky argument to pull off - the poor caused the debt so they should pay it back".
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...nd-all-the-money-isnt-it-obvious-8553643.html


----------



## ypauly (Apr 1, 2013)

I agree with most of what's said here.

Toby the churches speaking out yesterday all over the news I couldn't miss it but they kept saying the same thing that is working people that are the poorest and that is what must change. Work should make your living standard higher than not working yet a recent report showed that most food bank users are in work.

Something went terribly wrong with the welfare system and there isn't a big pot of money to put it right.


Alison "You get what you vote for"

Sadly that is true and untrue. as there isn't any real difference between the three major UK parties that I can see.


----------



## Northerner (Apr 1, 2013)

I've never voted for party, always policies and/or candidate. I'm quite happy with John Denham as I have a lot of respect for him. I'm very much a socialist and have yet to encounter a Tory government I have been happy with as they are fundamentally at odds with my core beliefs from Ted Heath to Cameron. If only John Smith had lived, he was only a couple of years older than I am now


----------



## ypauly (Apr 1, 2013)

Northerner said:


> I've never voted for party, always policies and/or candidate. I'm quite happy with John Denham as I have a lot of respect for him. I'm very much a socialist and have yet to encounter a Tory government I have been happy with as they are fundamentally at odds with my core beliefs from Ted Heath to Cameron. If only John Smith had lived, he was only a couple of years older than I am now



Can't argue with that. I doubt we would have had any of this mess had John Smith not died.


----------



## AlisonM (Apr 1, 2013)

ypauly said:


> Can't argue with that. I doubt we would have had any of this mess had John Smith not died.



Agreed. ..................................................


----------



## trophywench (Apr 1, 2013)

Well - I wonder?  whether what we imagine he would/could have done would actually have turned out to be what he did/could do?

Though I have to say - I thought he would/could have been really good for all of us too !


----------



## ypauly (Apr 1, 2013)

AlisonM said:


> Agreed. ..................................................









Me and Alison in agreement


----------



## AlisonM (Apr 1, 2013)

ypauly said:


> Me and Alison in agreement








Well, it had to happen sometime.


----------



## runner (Apr 2, 2013)

AlisonM said:


> I'm on benefits. I've worked hard all my life and, like most paid my taxes like a good little citizen (or rather subject). Until I fell on hard times and got sick. Even then, I managed to find a little job part-time that I loved. Now though, I am unable to do even that much and am having to fight tooth and nail for what I am entitled to, having paid in all those years. Surely that cash should be there when I, and those like me, need it? I am not a scrounger, I never have been and I deeply resent the characterisation.
> 
> *[rant]*There are scroungers, we all know there are, but in spite of what certain folk would have us believe, they are in a minority. Rather than punish those responsible for the financial crisis we're in (greedy bankers, government mismanagement and 'blind eye' syndrome) they pick on the most vulnerable, those who often unable to fight back, the easy targets.
> 
> ...



You've hit the nail right on the head - you paid _insurance_ so that if you fell on hard times, it would pay out - you and all the other people on benefits, for whatever reason _are not scroungers_  I totally agree with you about voting - I have voted ever since I had the right, bar 1 election when I was out of the country.  I nagged my children to vote in the last election.  sadly, i know at least 2 of them voted lib-dem in the hope for something radical and new, only to be betrayed - it may have put them off voting again... This government are so incompetent and my blood boils every time they talk about 'encouraging people to work'.  I know so many people who have literally applied for hundreds of jobs, to no avail and many more who've been made redundant.  If they could work, they would.  they should not be punished even further.  sorry, got to stop before I blow a gassget!!!!!


----------



## Northerner (Apr 2, 2013)

And how about this for squeezing the poor even further?

"Minimum wage could be frozen or cut if it starts to cost jobs or damage economy, Government suggests"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/996...bs-or-damage-economy-Government-suggests.html


----------



## Donald (Apr 2, 2013)

The way I feel at the moment they  might as well put a gun to our head and shoot us


----------



## Old Holborn (Apr 2, 2013)

Donald said:


> The way I feel at the moment they might as well put a gun to our head and shoot us


 

Bet we have to pay for the Bullets!


----------



## Twitchy (Apr 2, 2013)

Northerner said:


> And how about this for squeezing the poor even further?
> 
> "Minimum wage could be frozen or cut if it starts to cost jobs or damage economy, Government suggests"
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/996...bs-or-damage-economy-Government-suggests.html



So just remnd me what happened when the bankers damaged the economy & destroyed jobs?!!  better sign out before I get barred for swearing, all I can politely say is this is NOT a moral government!!!!


----------



## Steff (Apr 2, 2013)

Heard a Line Osborne said earlier 9 outt 10 working families will be better off, joked to my dad as we are a working house that we will be one percent who int lol


----------



## Andy HB (Apr 2, 2013)

Steff said:


> Heard a Line Osborne said earlier 9 outt 10 working families will be better off, joked to my dad as we are a working house that we will be one percent who int lol



I ran the budget calculator on the BBC website following the recent budget. Assuming one is not in receipt of any benefits and is earning a wage, I could find no salary where one was not better off. This is mainly because of the change in the tax free allowance (for salaries below the old 50% now 45% tax band. Salaries above that clearly benefitting from that 5% tax reduction!).

(pssst, 1 out of 10 is 10%) 

Andy


----------



## Andy HB (Apr 2, 2013)

Twitchy said:


> So just remnd me what happened when the bankers damaged the economy & destroyed jobs?!!  better sign out before I get barred for swearing, all I can politely say is this is NOT a moral government!!!!



I'd take issue with the premise that trying to get the country's finances in order is an immoral thing to do. Labour would have been making cuts too. The only difference is that they are now free to oppose everything on the basis that they are not in power at the moment. 

I am not convinced by Labour's position that borrowing even more now to try and stimulate growth is something that will work. I think that we are under so much debt right now that this is likely to sink us even faster!

But, that is just an opinion and I could be wrong. I doubt whether anyone really knows what would happen in that circumstance until it actually comes about. Let's just toss a coin shall we?!! 

Andy


----------



## runner (Apr 2, 2013)

Andy HB said:


> I ran the budget calculator on the BBC website following the recent budget. Assuming one is not in receipt of any benefits and is earning a wage, I could find no salary where one was not better off. This is mainly because of the change in the tax free allowance (for salaries below the old 50% now 45% tax band. Salaries above that clearly benefitting from that 5% tax reduction!).
> 
> (pssst, 1 out of 10 is 10%)
> 
> Andy



Did they include the increasing cost of food, fuel, heating, and just about everything else?


----------



## runner (Apr 2, 2013)

Andy HB said:


> I'd take issue with the premise that trying to get the country's finances in order is an immoral thing to do.
> 
> But, that is just an opinion and I could be wrong. I doubt whether anyone really knows what would happen in that circumstance until it actually comes about. Let's just toss a coin shall we?!!
> 
> Andy



It's not an immoral thing to do, the way they are doing it is immoral.  Lets not wait and see, lets get rid of this government before it's too late.


----------



## Pumper_Sue (Apr 2, 2013)

runner said:


> It's not an immoral thing to do, the way they are doing it is immoral.  Lets not wait and see, lets get rid of this government before it's too late.



Slight problem, was it not labour who started all the reforms and also bankrupted the country in the first place?
From what I can work out they all as bad as each other.


----------



## ypauly (Apr 2, 2013)

Andy HB said:


> I'd take issue with the premise that trying to get the country's finances in order is an immoral thing to do. Labour would have been making cuts too. The only difference is that they are now free to oppose everything on the basis that they are not in power at the moment.
> 
> I am not convinced by Labour's position that borrowing even more now to try and stimulate growth is something that will work. I think that we are under so much debt right now that this is likely to sink us even faster!
> 
> ...



As we have recently lost our AAA credit rating I would say we are already walking a fine line and that the money men wouldn't be too happy if we went on a spending spree. This would increase the cost of lending which is already eye watering at the moment and is set to be around ?70 Billion a year by may 2015 which is more than half what we spend on the NHS.


ETA That is a lot to spend on just interest payments and at the rate our spending is still growing it could be several years before we even start thinking about repaying the debt.


On the minimum wage I have just read this.............If you work full time and earn the minimum wage you earn around ?12875 a year. In the last full year of the labour government a person earning that would pay tax on ?6840 of it. Next year a minimum wage earner will pay tax on only ?2875 of it. Seems to me minimum wage earners have had a sizeable increase in take home pay since labour left office just by the increasing of personal allowances.



Some say that equates to ?370.  


ETA I doubt they would be stupid enough to try and reduce the minimum.


----------



## Twitchy (Apr 2, 2013)

When I said this is not a moral govt I wasn't referring to reducing the debt/deficit, that has to be done & frankly labour's record in terms of deregulation etc is pretty shameful too...I no longer have faith in the mainstream parties after the past decade or two.  BUT tax breaks for the richest whilst grubbing back what to a middle class person might just be 'a few quid' from families on the fiscal borderline (where it makes a huge difference) is to my mind the immoral bit...fine if there was a plentiful housing stock which could be redistributed, but this is not the case, so this is just another tax on the more vulnerable parts of society.  That's just one example - the back door privitisation of the nhs by stealth is another thing I'm hopping about...then there's cameron's words promising localism vs the realities of central govt imposed decisions that I've seen in our area recently...

So a govt that gives breaks to those who don't need them whilst making life universally harder for the vulnerable, that says one thing & does another...to my mind that's immoral. Just my opinion of course, I'm sure they still have some supporters...all the ceo's of those private healthcare firms for example...


----------



## Andy HB (Apr 3, 2013)

The 50% to 45% tax rate cut is an exercise in pragmatism, not morals. They are working on the theory that a tax cut will actually result in greater tax receipts because the filthy rich will be more inclined to pay their taxes rather than squirrel their money away.

As to the other side of your argument, I am more inclined to be sympathetic. The *truly* poor DO need to be supported and I am not sure that this government is doing that (more through ignorance than any lack of morals though).

However, on the other hand I am totally behind the government's stated aims of making work rather than benefits pay. Yes, in the short to medium term, this is going to be harder on some people, but longer term it is far more sustainable than the current welfare culture that seems to be all to prevalent these days.

Andy


----------



## Twitchy (Apr 3, 2013)

I totally agree that work should pay.  I guess in a perfect world no-one capable of work would/should be forced into dependency on welfare. And I do appreciate there are a few bad apples who do make a deliberate choice to take up a welfare system life by choice (I know someone whose sibling freely admits that they take the view 'why should I work' which is frankly infuriating, as I'm sure we all would all take the view if you can genuinely work but choose not to, why should I subsidise you?!)

I also appreciate there are shed loads of people able & willing to work who just can't get jobs & not for lack of trying.  Not sure how jobs can be generated to fulfill the need, but I also suspect it's a multifaceted problem with no one clear root cause. 
...  I think a lot of essential jobs are terribly undervalued in this country which feeds into the problem. It seems to me a combination of higher living costs (fuel for one thing!) with low wages is pinching people into a position where they get trapped in a viscious cycle of debt. It's not straightforward but I just wonder whether in years to come we'll look back at the policies being implemented now & think 'phew, it worked' or just shudder.


----------



## Northerner (Apr 3, 2013)

It's a stunt! Iain Duncan Smith dismisses demands to live on ?53 a week

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ses-demands-to-live-on-53-a-week-8556985.html


----------



## Donald (Apr 3, 2013)

Why Because he knows he cannot do it . it is impossible


----------



## ypauly (Apr 3, 2013)

Donald said:


> Why Because he knows he cannot do it . it is impossible



It's not impossible, there are people who have to survive on much much less. It would be hard, very very hard if you are used to a higher standard of living but not impossible. The reason I say this is smply because people do survive on it and are doing so as we speak.
 and they have been doing so under the 13 years of labour too. well actually it was less, I know this as my brother had to survive on less.


----------



## FM001 (Apr 3, 2013)

Northerner said:


> It's a stunt! Iain Duncan Smith dismisses demands to live on ?53 a week
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ses-demands-to-live-on-53-a-week-8556985.html




At least Giddeon Osborne had the brains to duck out of the question unlike the smug IDS.  A despicable character if ever there was one, of all the coalition ministers he is the one I would most like to see thrown out of government, thank goodness he didn't last 2 minutes as party leader and never became PM.


----------



## Northerner (Apr 3, 2013)

I think the biggest scandal in all this is the fact that the Labour opposition have been so totally ineffectual, despite so many golden opportunities to make mincemeat of the government


----------



## FM001 (Apr 3, 2013)

Northerner said:


> I think the biggest scandal in all this is the fact that the Labour opposition have been so totally ineffectual, despite so many golden opportunities to make mincemeat of the government




That's very true, with Ed at the helm its never going to get any better


----------



## HOBIE (Apr 3, 2013)

Surely you have to better off working for a living ??????


----------



## Northerner (Apr 3, 2013)

HOBIE said:


> Surely you have to better off working for a living ??????



That's true, but I think part of the problem with some of these reforms is that they penalise the disabled, who may not be able to work (especially in the current market) or many people who are actually in work and have no way to increase their income to make up for the loss of benefits. The proportion of people who are actually happy to be 'living off benefits' is probably very small, but all claimants are being tarred with the same brush


----------



## HOBIE (Apr 3, 2013)

16 years of another government. They sorted it all out War, Debt ?


----------



## ypauly (Apr 3, 2013)

Northerner said:


> That's true, but I think part of the problem with some of these reforms is that they penalise the disabled, who may not be able to work (especially in the current market) or many people who are actually in work and have no way to increase their income to make up for the loss of benefits. The proportion of people who are actually happy to be 'living off benefits' is probably very small, but all claimants are being tarred with the same brush



I know several people that make no attempt to look for work of any nature, even going to the extent of deliberately ruining job interviews they are arranged for them but I wont waste my time typing about them as they just make me angry.


I have a totally different view where the disabled are concerned as most people can do some form of work even if answering phones or data input using adapted equipment. Employers should be given tax breaks or other incentives for employing those that are someway challenged and employment laws should be much tougher where these people are concerned too.

I am amazed at the lengths some disabled go to in order to find employment and are constantly knocked back, my daughter has a friend with one hand who as a young adult with a great knowledge of computers and their workings should not be spending his days in a charity shop because that's all he can find to do. I am certain that he and others like him would gladly hand their benefits over to an employer in return for a proper job and a wage. My heart goes out to those people who are trying.


The problem is as I see it, some people go from one failure to the next without any loss of enthusiasm but some people just can't be arsed. The world would be perfect if we could just correctly identify the two groups and give out the benefits accordingly.


----------



## StephenM (Apr 3, 2013)

The benefits bill in this country is just too high and need to be reduced. At a guess 80%+ of those on long term sick are perfectly fit to work but are just bone idle. Obviously there are some issues with ATOS but I think these could be resolved by focussing on the more difficult cases instead of soft targets ? it is obviously easier to focus on a couple in their late fifties with no children than a dysfunctional twenty/thirty somethings breeding faster than rabbits. Perhaps they answer is to limit these people to a maximum of two children with a third meaning compulsory sterilisation. You only have to look at the Philpotts to see the results of benefits dependency. I will be voting UKIP next month as I think they are the only ones with the guts to tackle this and immigration issue! 

As regards the labour party they should get rid of Milliband. Look at his brother ? he resigned rather than confront what someone may have said in 2005. They have less balls than a boy band or ping-pong table!


----------



## ypauly (Apr 3, 2013)

Labour needs to be working class again rather than the middle/upper middle class it has become. Having multi millionaire milliband with his ?2 million house and a privately schooled ed balls on one side with that harriet woman on the other won't help.

All but one of the 29 shadow cabinet members went to uni 15 are oxbridge educated. That is not the party of the working class they are more tory than the conservatives and proved that with their cozying up to bankers and big business when they were in office.



As I see it at the moment there isnt' a party that the working man or woman for that matter  can truely support and call their own.


----------



## cherrypie (Apr 4, 2013)

Well this IMHO really says it all.  Much more important than helping the poor.
I know of people who cannot afford ?15 per day to feed a family and this lot are moaning again.  Why does the taxpayer have to feed them?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...inner-expenses-rules-not-generous-enough.html


----------



## Northerner (Apr 4, 2013)

cherrypie said:


> Well this IMHO really says it all.  Much more important than helping the poor.
> I know of people who cannot afford ?15 per day to feed a family and this lot are moaning again.  Why does the taxpayer have to feed them?
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...inner-expenses-rules-not-generous-enough.html



poor s*ds  But let's not forget 'we're all in it together'


----------



## Twitchy (Apr 4, 2013)

*Don't get me started...!!!*


----------



## Donald (Apr 4, 2013)

I have a totally different view where the disabled are concerned as most people can do some form of work even if answering phones or data input using adapted equipment. Employers should be given tax breaks or other incentives for employing those that are someway challenged and employment laws should be much tougher where these people are concerned too.

 I am amazed at the lengths some disabled go to in order to find employment and are constantly knocked back, my daughter has a friend with one hand who as a young adult with a great knowledge of computers and their workings should not be spending his days in a charity shop because that's all he can find to do. I am certain that he and others like him would gladly hand their benefits over to an employer in return for a proper job and a wage. My heart goes out to those people who are trying.


 The problem is as I see it, some people go from one failure to the next without any loss of enthusiasm but some people just can't be arsed. The world would be perfect if we could just correctly identify the two groups and give out the benefits accordingly.


 yes Paul There is a company in Aberdeen called Glencraft the majority of the staff are blind and the company just been bought over after going bust and a company called Remploy a company set up years age to help disabled people and whom I used to work for but now they also seem to be struggling. If company's like these get support more people who are disabled well feel their doing something you know what I mean.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...gHt0ULkP4WaSFD6563efQQQ&bvm=bv.44770516,d.d2k


http://www.remploy.co.uk/


----------



## runner (Apr 4, 2013)

StephenM said:


> The benefits bill in this country is just too high and need to be reduced. At a guess 80%+ of those on long term sick are perfectly fit to work but are just bone idle. Obviously there are some issues with ATOS but I think these could be resolved by focussing on the more difficult cases instead of soft targets ? it is obviously easier to focus on a couple in their late fifties with no children than a dysfunctional twenty/thirty somethings breeding faster than rabbits. Perhaps they answer is to limit these people to a maximum of two children with a third meaning compulsory sterilisation. You only have to look at the Philpotts to see the results of benefits dependency. I will be voting UKIP next month as I think they are the only ones with the guts to tackle this and immigration issue!
> 
> As regards the labour party they should get rid of Milliband. Look at his brother ? he resigned rather than confront what someone may have said in 2005. They have less balls than a boy band or ping-pong table!



It's called Eugenics - and at the beginning of the century was promoted as a way of 'getting rid' of disabilities (including, I beleive homosexuality, which was considered 'abnormal' by them) by enforcing sterilisation upon the disabled, particularly those with learning difficulties - very popular with the Natzis and Faschists too. It's partly why we fought in the WW2 thank god it never got anywhere in this country, and several famous supporters, like virginia Woolf,  later apologised for supporting it.


----------



## Northerner (Apr 4, 2013)

An interesting analysis of the real economics of the situation, aside from all the rhetoric and politics:

http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Mythbuster_-_Britain_is_Broke_web.pdf


----------



## ypauly (Apr 4, 2013)

Northerner said:


> An interesting analysis of the real economics of the situation, aside from all the rhetoric and politics:
> 
> http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Mythbuster_-_Britain_is_Broke_web.pdf



Well for an article that claims to be none political it makes a hell of alot of political statements and hifdden inside is this little paragraph.

"Nonetheless, it is always as well not to be complacent. The modest current cost level of current debt servicing will be of no comfort, if this cost could soon rocket skyward. And Figure 3 does suggest that the swelling of the debt burden since the great crash thus far has indeed coincided with the start of a modest upward spike in debt interest payments over the last few years. Any prudent chancellor should of course be very concerned if there were a serious possibility of things spinning out of control."


It also mentions Gordon browns 40% rule yet fails to mention that he broke that himself with pre crash debt hitting 42%


I don't see it saying what effect printing money worth nearly 1/3 of our national debt has had nor the resulting devaluation of the ? by 25%. I would also point out that the overall debt figures are wrong and where it goes on about crumbling hospitals a massive amount of PFI's were signed up for under the last goverment thus keep the resulting debt for the rebuilding of schools and hospitals of the nation balance sheet but it is a debt that still exists. It will still have to be repaid.


But back to the first paragraph I quoted. Our debt interest will cost in the region of ?70 BILLION a year by the end of this parliament, political colour is irrelevant because even a couple of percentage points either way would still leave an economy leaking money at a rate it can't afford without causing some pain. That figure is more than HALF what we spend on the NHS, just imagine what we could achieve without that debt burden.


----------



## Andy HB (Apr 4, 2013)

Northerner said:


> An interesting analysis of the real economics of the situation, aside from all the rhetoric and politics:
> 
> http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Mythbuster_-_Britain_is_Broke_web.pdf



An interesting alternative perspective. But I found this statement to be crucial ....

"Nonetheless, it is always as well not to be complacent. The modest current cost level of current debt servicing will be of no comfort, if this cost could soon rocket skyward. And Figure 3 does suggest that the swelling of the debt burden since the great crash thus far has indeed coincided with the start of a modest upward spike in debt interest payments over the last few years. *Any prudent chancellor should of course be very concerned if there were a serious possibility of things spinning out of control*."

Edit: SNAP!!


----------



## AlisonM (Apr 4, 2013)

That makes fascinating reading Alan. Pity it won't be seen by enough people to make any difference. Banner headlines screaming "Your government is lying to you" would seem appropriate. 

In my view, those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. Both Eugenics and Keynesian economics are proven failures based on outmoded and illogical notions. Both are also inhumane and utterly reprehensible.


----------



## FM001 (Apr 4, 2013)

StephenM said:


> The benefits bill in this country is just too high and need to be reduced. At a guess 80%+ of those on long term sick are perfectly fit to work but are just bone idle. Obviously there are some issues with ATOS but I think these could be resolved by focussing on the more difficult cases instead of soft targets ? it is obviously easier to focus on a couple in their late fifties with no children than a dysfunctional twenty/thirty somethings breeding faster than rabbits. Perhaps they answer is to limit these people to a maximum of two children with a third meaning compulsory sterilisation. You only have to look at the Philpotts to see the results of benefits dependency. I will be voting UKIP next month as I think they are the only ones with the guts to tackle this and immigration issue!




80% are perfectly fit to work but are just bone idle

Using the Philpotts as an example is in very poor taste, should the mass sterilisation apply to everyone after their third child or just those on benefits, what happens if someone on benefits eventually finds work and wants to have more children but can't due to compulsory sterilisation?

Some people need to engage their brain before hitting the keyboard


----------



## AlisonM (Apr 5, 2013)

Andy HB said:


> .../*Any prudent chancellor should of course be very concerned if there were a serious possibility of things spinning out of control*."



But there isn't, there hasn't been and there won't be. We've been sold a pup. 

In an attempt to focus our attention on something other than governmental duplicity and the banking sector's greed we are invited by their pals in the meeja to pillory the most vulnerable and most helpless sectors of our society. The ill and infirm, the poor and the disadvantaged. The easiest targets, the silent majority, silent because they mostly have no voice loud enough to be heard above the din of rhetoric spouted by those in power and parroted by unthinking press regardless of the real facts.

The banking sector was allowed to run riot unchecked for years, in spite of the lessons that should have been learned during the early 20th century. Bolstering their cronies card houses they played Russian Roulette with people's lives. And, when the gun finally went of, whose head gets blown off? Certainly not the bankers, oh no, can't touch them, they're too powerful. And not the politicians who turned a blind eye and let it happen. But the least of us, the ones at the bottom of the heap with the most to lose.

There are criminals and chancers involved here but they will never be brought to book for their crimes because elected officials are too scared or cowardly to do the right thing.


----------



## Northerner (Apr 5, 2013)

AlisonM said:


> But there isn't, there hasn't been and there won't be. We've been sold a pup.
> 
> In an attempt to focus our attention on something other than governmental duplicity and the banking sector's greed we are invited by their pals in the meeja to pillory the most vulnerable and most helpless sectors of our society. The ill and infirm, the poor and the disadvantaged. The easiest targets, the silent majority, silent because they mostly have no voice loud enough to be heard above the din of rhetoric spouted by those in power and parroted by unthinking press regardless of the real facts.
> 
> ...



Very eloquently put Alison


----------



## Andy HB (Apr 5, 2013)

Roll on the revolution, I say. Let's hope that it is a 'velvet' one.

Then wait for the status quo to return as those in power are slowly but surely corrupted again.



			
				George Orwell said:
			
		

> There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.



Andy


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Apr 5, 2013)

Northerner said:


> Very eloquently put Alison



Heard/seen the latest ?

Osborne's chauffer parked Osborne's land rover in a disabled parking spot next the front door of a Service Station on the M4.

An outraged motorist snapped the vehicle.

A toff adding insult to injury  Going together with Osborne's ticketless journey in first class rail last year tends to suggest he hasn't got a clue about the real world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/05/george-osborne-disabled-parking-space


----------



## Andy HB (Apr 5, 2013)

mcdonagh47 said:


> Heard/seen the latest ?
> 
> Osborne's chauffer parked Osborne's land rover in a disabled parking spot next the front door of a Service Station on the M4.
> 
> ...



I'd argue he was just trying to get in touch 'with the common man', after all, most people I see ignore disabled bays when parking too.

To be fair, though, I think it says more about his driver than him.

Andy 

p.s. By the way, in case anyone infers anything from my comments. I am no admirer of Mr Osborne.


----------



## ypauly (Apr 5, 2013)

Andy HB said:


> Roll on the revolution, I say. Let's hope that it is a 'velvet' one.
> 
> Then wait for the status quo to return as those in power are slowly but surely corrupted again.
> 
> ...



Outrage about a parking space? Sounds like some needs a chill pill. Especially ss our top politicians need added security and the driver woild more than likely have been told where to park by that securitu team.

Anything to have a go a the consrrvatives but this really is scraping the barrel.


----------



## ypauly (Apr 5, 2013)

^^^^^^^
That must have quoted a different post.


----------



## AlisonM (Apr 5, 2013)

It's not his politics in this instance it's his (and his team's) utter clueless, selfish thoughtlessness. Any public figure caught out like this would get the same opprobrium. As they should.


----------



## ypauly (Apr 5, 2013)

Just had to look up opprobrium 


I can now disagree with knowledge, it is too harsh far too harsh we are talking about a parking space nothing more nothing less and getting worked up over such a trivial matter shows there is a motive and his politics provides that motive.

really opprobrium? outrage? really. When he wasn't even driving? when somebody else has probaly chosen where he parks? really? outrage?


If that's the worlds biggest problem we have go it good.


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Apr 5, 2013)

ypauly said:


> Just had to look up opprobrium
> 
> 
> I can now disagree with knowledge, it is too harsh far too harsh we are talking about a parking space nothing more nothing less and getting worked up over such a trivial matter shows there is a motive and his politics provides that motive.
> ...



LOL - lighten up, its just a deliciously ironic situation. In the midst of taking a load of disabled people off benefits our "Work Experience Chancellor" turns out to be a "benefit scrounger" himself, enjoying a benefit he is not entitled to.
He does seem to be gaffe-prone though.


----------



## cherrypie (Apr 11, 2013)

Northerner said:


> It's a stunt! Iain Duncan Smith dismisses demands to live on ?53 a week
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ses-demands-to-live-on-53-a-week-8556985.html



This reporter is trying to live on ?53 per week but does not seem to be factoring in anything else other than food.  I could live on ?53 a week for food but what about utilities, repairs, clothing etc. and it doesn't stop after a week so everything must get behind and you would have to choose priorities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-22087470


----------



## Cat1964 (Apr 11, 2013)

Twitchy said:


> I totally agree that work should pay.  I guess in a perfect world no-one capable of work would/should be forced into dependency on welfare. And I do appreciate there are a few bad apples who do make a deliberate choice to take up a welfare system life by choice (I know someone whose sibling freely admits that they take the view 'why should I work' which is frankly infuriating, as I'm sure we all would all take the view if you can genuinely work but choose not to, why should I subsidise you?!)
> 
> I also appreciate there are shed loads of people able & willing to work who just can't get jobs & not for lack of trying.  Not sure how jobs can be generated to fulfill the need, but I also suspect it's a multifaceted problem with no one clear root cause.
> ...  I think a lot of essential jobs are terribly undervalued in this country which feeds into the problem. It seems to me a combination of higher living costs (fuel for one thing!) with low wages is pinching people into a position where they get trapped in a viscious cycle of debt. It's not straightforward but I just wonder whether in years to come we'll look back at the policies being implemented now & think 'phew, it worked' or just shudder.



Absolutely agree with you work should pay. There are generations of families stuck on benefits because no-ones ever shown them any different. I was at school when Thatcher came into Government. I saw my father being put out of a job and never worked again due to his age, no employer would take him on. I was out of work and claimed benefits too. I joined the Job Club and sent out thousands of CV's. I remember going for an interview at a new hotel which was opening in Glasgow. I had recently qualified as a hotel receptionist having studied so hard. I took my certificates along to the interview. At the end of the interview the guy told me I was overqualified for the job!  Reason being he said is that years before I did a foundation Social Work course and passed that with distinctions, so he felt that if something better than a hotel receptionist ever came up I'd jump ship! Eventually through the help of Job Club I did find a job, but not in Glasgow. I had to move to Maidenhead in Berkshire for a job as a hotel receptionist. I have been in work ever since albeit with a short break after my daughter was born. 

Essential jobs are very undervalued. People these days don't want to do a cleaning job which pays national minimum wage. How do people expect to get on further. It is true that it is easier to find work when you are in work. I'm not a hotel receptionist any more but have had several interesting jobs over the years. 

I see benefits being paid to families who get so much from the state that they do not feel the need to work because of the nice lifestyle they already have without having to lift a finger. I personally know a family on benefits who can afford Sky TV, a car, 3 or 4 holidays a year, pony riding lessons, swimming lessons, drama classes, nights out to gigs......I could go on. I have been in the same job for 12 years, I have worked hard to be in the position that I am now in work and still work hard to make sure I retain that position. I don't have Sky TV Or even cable for that matter. I have free view built into my TV. We haven't had a family holiday in 8 years. My daughter is incredibly talented and I would love to be able to afford to pay for classes for her. I heard either Cameron or Osborne recently talking about the benefit caps. They said that they were going to cap the benefit of someone who was getting ?18,000 per year. I don't even earn ?18,000 a year!!! 

I also think it is about work ethics. If a child sees their parents working hard to try and provide a good living for their family that's a good lesson learnt. My daughter has watched her father and I work since he was 9 months. At an early age she knew that money doesn't grow on trees and that if you really want something you need to work hard for it. My daughter is 15 now but as soon as she was legally old enough to have a Saturday job at 13 she went out searching for work. She has a little job she does at weekends and some days in the holidays. Personally, I think she gets paid well for the job she does and for her age. I always joke with her she has more disposable income than I do! But she works very hard for her pay. Her boss phoned me and thanked me for having such a hardworking, polite daughter. I said to her boss don't thank me it's my daughter who does he work. Her boss replied it has also something to do with how you bring your children up. She is a credit to you. 

I firmly believe that there are shirkers out there who will do their all to avoid working so claim as much from the welfare system as possible. What I also believe in is that we should be supporting the most vulnerable people in our society who can't work due to ill health, be that physical or mental health. These people should be helped and guided to make sure they are claiming all benefits they are entitled to. There are millions of pounds out here that go unclaimed because no-one advises these people their entitlement. I spoke to someone once who told me he was living on his DLA. When I asked him if he was claiming ESA he told me no, he didn't think he'd be entitled to ESA because of his DLA!  I have read of people's experiences on here of claiming benefits and the hoops they feel they have to jump through. If you are genuinely in need of benefit you shouldn't feel that you need to jump through hoops or be scared of asking for help through benefits without feeling like a scrounger.

Work needs to pay or the situation in this country will never change, how that happens is up to the government. I think there needs to be benefit reforms to help those in need and also to get people who are avoiding work to get off their backsides because I do not want to carry them until the day I retire.


----------

