Will the cruel Tory welfare reforms save any money?

First topic message reminder :

My personal opinion is that the current spate of tory reforms to the benefit system are cruel, regressive, and worst of all won't save money (the alleged intention).



In a supposedly modern civilised country one would think housing would be considered a human right.......rather than simply an investment / a chance to make a fast buck.

I note there is talk of a yacht for the biggest benefit claimee of them all. I note over £10billion has been spent on the olympics. I note £32billion is being spent on a high speed rail link (london-birmingham) - this will shave, a no doubt absolutely vita,l 32mins off the journey (essential??!!!) and be used by a miniscule % of the UK population.

How about investing this money in affordable social housing instead? Or do government no longer care to invest in those they view as peasants and serfs?

The tories efforts to turn the nation against those unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed via vile smears, and an insidious propaganda campaign, are reminiscent of Nazi germany's propaganda campaign against the jews.

Iain Duncan Smith is a disgusting human being and has blood on his hands.

Instead of kicking the weakest targets that can't defend themselves....maybe the Bullingdon bullies should try picking on somebody their own size.....like the bankers, or benefit leeching corporations like Tescos.

They currently resemble a 20st thug stamping on a little girls head.

Welfare is essential and if we are to remain a civilised country we owe it to ourselves to provide for those less fortunate; unless we want to see people starving and homeless turning into savages.

The biggest burden on the UK in recent times has not been the unemployed.....welfare is not a burden - it is an essential expense in a civilised nation.

The biggest burden, and the cause of much unemployment, has been the rich greedy bankers who have cost this country, and us taxpayers, untold £billions in order to benefit a few. They have placed the real burden on the UK.

Gideon and Cameron have boasted on the podium that they - "are Sons of Thatcher" So no more needs to be said about their "mission" in politics.

astra wrote:Gideon and Cameron have boasted on the podium that they - "are Sons of Thatcher" So no more needs to be said about their "mission" in politics.

If only Clegg would jump ship.

If only Clegg would jump ship.

The sea would spit the dirty bastard straight back out.

Like I said before, it seems many of you are just out of touch with the public feeling here

MSN POLL

Have your say
Should the amount a family receives in benefits a year be capped at £26,000?

81 % Yes - 6,218 votes
19 % No - 1,439 votes

Total Responses: 7,657
Not scientifically valid. Results are updated every minute.

blueturando wrote:Like I said before, it seems many of you are just out of touch with the public feeling here

MSN POLL

Have your say
Should the amount a family receives in benefits a year be capped at £26,000?

81 % Yes - 6,218 votes
19 % No - 1,439 votes

Total Responses: 7,657
Not scientifically valid. Results are updated every minute.

I am sure you poll is quite right Bluey. so being in the minority is nothing new to myself. However, even there are people who like me believe that I.D.S Figures do not quite add up. got a feeling that this will not work out as such a big saving that he believes it will be. saw a guy on the BBC cut his figures to bits. what's more used his own data to beat him with. all very interesting. we will soon see how this works out in the real world. will we not?

Stox 16 wrote:

blueturando wrote:Like I said before, it seems many of you are just out of touch with the public feeling here

MSN POLL

Have your say
Should the amount a family receives in benefits a year be capped at £26,000?

81 % Yes - 6,218 votes
19 % No - 1,439 votes

Total Responses: 7,657
Not scientifically valid. Results are updated every minute.

I am sure you poll is quite right Bluey. so being in the minority is nothing new to myself. However, even there are people who like me believe that I.D.S Figures do not quite add up. got a feeling that this will not work out as such a big saving that he believes it will be. saw a guy on the BBC cut his figures to bits. what's more used his own data to beat him with. all very interesting. we will soon see how this works out in the real world. will we not?

The is not about saving any money. The right of the Tory party in Government have an instinctive loathing of the welfare state. But naturally they have at this time they have brought this up because the Tory's know it will appeal to the largely braindead Torty supporting public who give not a fig for the unemployed, and many other politically ignorant in our society, our country.

People are struggling thanks to over 18 years of Thatcher's free market policies, what better time to introduce this welfare cutting to the British, knowing full well a huge amount of people will for foir it hook line and sinker, because they are jealous of some people getting what they cant get.

If the polls are to be believed, Britain is now a nasty little jealous nation as more and more people are thrown into unemployment on means tesated benefits struggling to get by while realising under the Tory's stringent economic policies they will never work again.

It's an outrage that millions among the British people can be so jealous and small minded, because the unemployed and housing benefit receivers are being basically saved from the gutter.

Any person / couple / family with an income of £26,000 per year will have a weekly income of £500 nett.

My honest opinion, can the stereotypical family ( 2 adults + 2 children ) get by on £500 per week ? -- YES, and if they cant then I believe something does not make sense or add up.

I know of no private rents anywhere here in affluent North Yorkshire which are over £600, and for that kind of money you would get a 3 / 4 bedroom house in a very nice area.

As a Labour supporter and voter I back the benefits cap, as do the majority of working Labour voters - be careful Mr Miliband.

For MSN to hold a poll on such a big issue and ask for a yes, no response is ludicrous, There are many factors to be considered, especially as to where the poll was held, and how many of the respondents actually live anywhere near London where most of the carnage will occur.
By making it a yes no issue, MSN are playing right into Iain Dumkopff Schmitt’s hands. Now try to tell me the Media hasn’t a right wing bias.
The Bastard couldn’t make a name for himself when he was the Tory Leader, but sure as hell is trying to make up for it now.
Less we forget. Iain Dumkopff Schmitt was the geezer who put on his CV, University Educated in Italy. When the truth came out it was that he attended as an evening student to learn Italian. Yet another lying, cheating Tory scumbag. But of course believed by all like minded Tory supporters.

witchfinder wrote:Any person / couple / family with an income of £26,000 per year will have a weekly income of £500 nett.

My honest opinion, can the stereotypical family ( 2 adults + 2 children ) get by on £500 per week ? -- YES, and if they cant then I believe something does not make sense or add up.

I know of no private rents anywhere here in affluent North Yorkshire which are over £600, and for that kind of money you would get a 3 / 4 bedroom house in a very nice area.

As a Labour supporter and voter I back the benefits cap, as do the majority of working Labour voters - be careful Mr Miliband.

I have no doubt that people would vote for a benefit cap. However if you look at the figures for numbers of people and families actually getting anything like that in terms of benefits, its miniscle in comparison to the total number of benefits claimants. Funnily enough what the incompetent Tories propose could end up costing the country more as the real benefit scroungers will exploit the many loopholes in Duncan Smithes proposals. Oh yes go for the headline figure by all means but also look at what these figures actually mean. I would aver that 90% of people would like fat cat pay bonuses capped as well, now that would be a thing I would give 100% support for.

LWS wrote:

witchfinder wrote:Any person / couple / family with an income of £26,000 per year will have a weekly income of £500 nett.

My honest opinion, can the stereotypical family ( 2 adults + 2 children ) get by on £500 per week ? -- YES, and if they cant then I believe something does not make sense or add up.

I know of no private rents anywhere here in affluent North Yorkshire which are over £600, and for that kind of money you would get a 3 / 4 bedroom house in a very nice area.

As a Labour supporter and voter I back the benefits cap, as do the majority of working Labour voters - be careful Mr Miliband.

I have no doubt that people would vote for a benefit cap. However if you look at the figures for numbers of people and families actually getting anything like that in terms of benefits, its miniscle in comparison to the total number of benefits claimants. Funnily enough what the incompetent Tories propose could end up costing the country more as the real benefit scroungers will exploit the many loopholes in Duncan Smithes proposals. Oh yes go for the headline figure by all means but also look at what these figures actually mean. I would aver that 90% of people would like fat cat pay bonuses capped as well, now that would be a thing I would give 100% support for.

There is nothing incompetent about the Tory's, their right wing policies are an agenda, they use divide and conquer to get into government and stay there.

Thatcher stopped building council houses in the 80's, we need council housing again on a universial scale.

witchfinder wrote:Any person / couple / family with an income of £26,000 per year will have a weekly income of £500 nett.

My honest opinion, can the stereotypical family ( 2 adults + 2 children ) get by on £500 per week ? -- YES, and if they cant then I believe something does not make sense or add up.

I know of no private rents anywhere here in affluent North Yorkshire which are over £600, and for that kind of money you would get a 3 / 4 bedroom house in a very nice area.

As a Labour supporter and voter I back the benefits cap, as do the majority of working Labour voters - be careful Mr Miliband.

Several points here to take into consideration witchfinder IMO. First £600 per month rent here in the south would be difficult to find even for a one bedroom flat. The going rate in East Suusex is around £1000 pm for a two bedroom house of flat. A three bedroom house/bungalow would set you back at least £1500 pm.

Now compare that with London rates and you can almost double those figs. I accept that there is a minority of people living in very expensive housing in London where landlords charge the earth and get away with it due to the shortage of normal living accomodation. These unemployed people are singled out by the press and media and the Tory government use these few examples to excite and frustrate those who are paying their taxes. The thing is, there are many who have lived and worked all their lives in London and have become disabled/ unemployed, who will be made to suffer through no fault of their own. After extracting the rent payments from your £500 per week considered sufficient by you and many taxpayers and of course IDS and Co, would you care to live on the residue with two or more young children? I think not.

Perhaps a more sensible and fairer idea would be to cap the rents in London in line with those you speak of in North Yorkshire and increase the min wage in line with inflation.
Not going to happen under this shower. Any excuse under the sun, any lie any opportunity to take from the needy to make life easier for the wealthy is being utilised in a vicios and mercinay way. Those who have jobs are all "right Jack" untill they are also affected by ruthless government cuts.

Finally and sadly, we British have become a selfish uncaring nation, brought about by Thatcherism and Camercon is following in her footsteps. The mass unemployment figs are proving my point.

I wonder what will happen to all those 'Top' London Resturants when they are no longer able to get dishwashers, at minimum wages, due to no one on minimum awage being able to live within economic travelling distance?

We are seeing a economic cleansing of the low paid and poor out of inner London.

The Armed Forces have already told soldiers who are stationed in London that they will loose their London Living Allowance in order to save money....Remember soldiers do not choose to be stationed in London unless they happen to be royal......

asrtrad1

It's all bloody disgusting and those who have been hoodwinked cant see it and those who are, or think they are for the time being "all right Jack" just dont care.
They are the ones who will squeal like pigs when and if it comes to them.. Then it will be too late and it's getting late already I fear.

astradt1 wrote:I wonder what will happen to all those 'Top' London Resturants when they are no longer able to get dishwashers, at minimum wages, due to no one on minimum awage being able to live within economic travelling distance?

We are seeing a economic cleansing of the low paid and poor out of inner London.

The Armed Forces have already told soldiers who are stationed in London that they will loose their London Living Allowance in order to save money....Remember soldiers do not choose to be stationed in London unless they happen to be royal......

astradt1
as always well said. your quite right in my view about economic cleaning of the low paid and poor within London.

Mal
you are also spot on with your summary.... Perhaps a more sensible and fairer idea would be to cap the rents in London in line with those you speak of in North Yorkshire and increase the min wage in line with inflation.....as its long over due

LWS
You too are right in pointing this out...Funnily enough what the incompetent Tories propose could end up costing the country more as the real benefit scroungers will exploit the many loopholes in Duncan Smithes proposals.....as I can see no long term benefit to the economy at all

Ivanhoe
but this lays at the real core of the issue in my book.....Thatcher stopped building council houses in the 80's, we need council housing again on a universial scale.....as nothing will come close to working unless there is cheap housing in the first place

bobby
this too is dead right....London where most of the carnage will occur.....what benefit will this bring us? none at all....not now or ever in my view.

asrtrad1
how bloody true is this.... It's all bloody disgusting and those who have been hoodwinked cant see it and those who are, or think they are for the time being "all right Jack" just dont care.

For me the whole thing is floored from start to finish...as geography is against you before you even start, that is without taking rent into account. to me this is right wing dogma with the hope to split working families away from middle class families while playing to the Daily Mail right wing agenda, that all unemployed people are on the take. which is utter rubbish. yes there will always be a few, but not all of them. its a stupid and floored right wing argument. but then it does help to take any UK debate away from the Tory lead economy that is in deep trouble. interesting timing all of this....
They are the ones who will squeal like pigs when and if it comes to them.. Then it will be too late and it's getting late already I fear.

At the moment, my business and home are in the Tory heartland of Surrey, But I was born in the heart of London (Westminster). I, my Father, Grandfather, and Great Grandfather came from Pimlico, Westminster, My Great Great Grandfather and some before him came from Kensington all Londoners and all Working people and one from a workhouse, What right has the Phucking Tory’s who come from all over England to tell us, we can not live in our City if we where to fall on hard times. The cap on benefits should fit the area where the people are, not rip out the heart of communities, just so the rich and powerful can have neighbours of their choosing.
I was born in Glamorgan Street Pimlico, in 1948, and moved to Churchill Gardens via Page Street in 1952, and lived there till joining the army in 1966. Churchill Gardens was one of the estate Dame Shirly Porter boarded empty flats up, and instead of giving them to the people the estate was built for, sold them to the rich or Foreign Embassies. This was a policy of Social Cleansing. When the River Thames was rotten and smelly, the Rich wanted nothing to do with places like Pimlico, but when the River was cleansed they came in their droves, and it was the indigenous people of the region that had to make way, they ended up all over the place from several heartless new towns to Thamesmead. Herr Cameron’s Government is continuing what the Criminal Shirley Porter started (at the behest of Thatcher) but using different tactics, and dividing people against each other to achieve their evil goals.

It's all bloody disgusting and those who have been hoodwinked cant see it and those who are, or think they are for the time being "all right Jack" just dont care.
They are the ones who will squeal like pigs when and if it comes to them.. Then it will be too late and it's getting late already I fear..

Mel and co.....I feel its you lot who have been hoodwinked. You have let your hatred for the tories cloud your judgement, so you will go against everything they propose no matter what. Unfortunately you are alienating so many of your core working class Labour supporters with your stance on a Benefits ceiling. As I have said before it appears you care more for people to get as much in benefits as they can without even a thought for the working class people of this country who pay their taxes for it.

You try and lump the benefits issue in with the issue of the highest earners in society, with this is a very different issue (One that does need to be dealt with I concede) The people who are most disgruntled with the current levels of benefits being paid are not the highest earners in our society, but the working and middle classes for whom the equivelent salary of 35k is but a dream. They cannot afford the rents in the most expensive areas of town, so they move to areas where they can afford it.....It's common sense people, just plain old common sense.
You underestimate to electorate if you think we are all brainwashed by the media and you underestimate them at your partys peril. If anything it is you who are brainwashed by your own idiology and many of you cannot see past your nose on what's happening out there.
You can carry on living in the past blaming Thatcher for every ill that has ever befallen humankind thoughout history, but in reality the rest of us have moved on and you should too, before its too late for you and your party and what they stand for becomes obselete

blueturando wrote:

It's all bloody disgusting and those who have been hoodwinked cant see it and those who are, or think they are for the time being "all right Jack" just dont care.
They are the ones who will squeal like pigs when and if it comes to them.. Then it will be too late and it's getting late already I fear..

Mel and co.....I feel its you lot who have been hoodwinked. You have let your hatred for the tories cloud your judgement, so you will go against everything they propose no matter what. Unfortunately you are alienating so many of your core working class Labour supporters with your stance on a Benefits ceiling. As I have said before it appears you care more for people to get as much in benefits as they can without even a thought for the working class people of this country who pay their taxes for it.

You try and lump the benefits issue in with the issue of the highest earners in society, with this is a very different issue (One that does need to be dealt with I concede) The people who are most disgruntled with the current levels of benefits being paid are not the highest earners in our society, but the working and middle classes for whom the equivelent salary of 35k is but a dream. They cannot afford the rents in the most expensive areas of town, so they move to areas where they can afford it.....It's common sense people, just plain old common sense.
You underestimate to electorate if you think we are all brainwashed by the media and you underestimate them at your partys peril. If anything it is you who are brainwashed by your own idiology and many of you cannot see past your nose on what's happening out there.
You can carry on living in the past blaming Thatcher for every ill that has ever befallen humankind thoughout history, but in reality the rest of us have moved on and you should too, before its too late for you and your party and what they stand for becomes obselete

Blueboy
I believe your party likes to talk about taking difficult decision's is that not right? well its may shock you to know, that this is the same when in opposition too. while you believe this most popular now and could well be right. how sure are you that it will still seen to be so popular when it is shown to not work at all and is met by rising costs of housing people at an even greater cost. Will you come back on here and admit that the Tory party under estimated your figures I wonder? got a feeling not. However, what I think you will find is the Labour party is questioning your parties costings. in my view quite rightly so too. but if we was to believe the Tory media then we should back you for the sole reason of gaining short term popularity within the media. however, moving on from this you seem to also advocate is there is some fixed rate benefit cap that is one size fits all? yet its quite clear by just the posts on here that this is not the case at all? now if this question stands to made the Labour party obselete then so be it for now. as it the duty of all opposition parties no matter who they maybe to point out when some legislation has a built in floor within it. this has nothing to do with brainwashing or anything else. it has too do with the real cost in the end. what's more your party in its great hurry to please the Daily Mail and hit friends. has in my view failed to prove your costings are right. now if short term popularity is your parties aim. then well done... you have won.... but will you be so happy to come back on here when its proven to fail due to cost?

you have also not said how or where you will house all these people either? so you move them all out and put them where? as you may not of taken note of the fact the we face a major housing short fall in the UK. as believe it or not we just do not have 80,000 houses on stand bye? So can you please explain too where you will house them and who you will move out to house them? Then can you next explain who will pay to move them all, is this the council by any chance? or are you going to now tell me that they the unemployed are loaded with cash to cover this cost, lets say £300 to £600 per house move?.. No...I believe its high time you show us all on here how this will all work in practice and where all this funding will come from? as I just cannot see it myself. you know Tory party economics has totally fascinated me over the last 30 years, so much so I now run my own company that helps in economic forecasting for one and investment as well. . as I can still remember all your parties massive claim's made over savings you would make with the C.S.A. yet today do we see any Tory talk about the true costs too the UK people? No we do not.... why because all your costing where well out.... Yet here is your party doing all again.... once more we have massive economic claim's with no costing or funding to pay for it all, while seeking popularity with the General public at large.

anyway Bluey...I am sure others will wish to ask you question on this....so you will be quite busy i feel

bobby wrote:At the moment, my business and home are in the Tory heartland of Surrey, But I was born in the heart of London (Westminster). I, my Father, Grandfather, and Great Grandfather came from Pimlico, Westminster, My Great Great Grandfather and some before him came from Kensington all Londoners and all Working people and one from a workhouse, What right has the Phucking Tory’s who come from all over England to tell us, we can not live in our City if we where to fall on hard times. The cap on benefits should fit the area where the people are, not rip out the heart of communities, just so the rich and powerful can have neighbours of their choosing.
I was born in Glamorgan Street Pimlico, in 1948, and moved to Churchill Gardens via Page Street in 1952, and lived there till joining the army in 1966. Churchill Gardens was one of the estate Dame Shirly Porter boarded empty flats up, and instead of giving them to the people the estate was built for, sold them to the rich or Foreign Embassies. This was a policy of Social Cleansing. When the River Thames was rotten and smelly, the Rich wanted nothing to do with places like Pimlico, but when the River was cleansed they came in their droves, and it was the indigenous people of the region that had to make way, they ended up all over the place from several heartless new towns to Thamesmead. Herr Cameron’s Government is continuing what the Criminal Shirley Porter started (at the behest of Thatcher) but using different tactics, and dividing people against each other to achieve their evil goals.

an interesting post on how our home town has change bobby. My family are born London family. Shoreditch and Bow family. my father can remember when ship where backed up trying to get into the pool of London docks. to see the Isle of Dogs today just brakes my heart. as it just looks like some big yuppy council estate for rich city bankers. gone are the real people who made London great. in has come a bunch of faceless people.

The Pool of London is a part of the Tideway of the River Thames from London Bridge to below Tower Bridge. It was the original part of the Port of London. The Pool of London is divided into two parts, the Upper Pool and Lower Pool. The Upper Pool consists of the section between London Bridge and Tower Bridge, while the Lower Pool traditionally runs from Tower Bridge to the Cherry Garden Pier in Rotherhithe.By 1794 there was 3,663 ships and 620,845 ton going in the the pool of London. Then area was extensively redeveloped in the 1980s and 1990s to create new residential and commercial neighbourhoods. Nonetheless, following post-war rebuilding they experienced a resurgence of prosperity in the 1950s. The end came suddenly, between approximately 1960 and 1970, when the shipping industry adopted the newly invented container system of cargo transportation. London's docks were unable to accommodate the much larger vessels needed by containerization and the shipping industry moved to deep-water ports such as Tilbury and Felixstowe. Between 1960 and 1980.

all very sad to a Son of the East end who now lives in Suffolk. but still work in London. not the same without the port in my view

It seems to me that there is ( as per usual ) a clear divide in property prices between greater London and the rest of the country, in years gone by there was always different rules for London for obvious reasons.

At one time the wages councils had different rates for living in London to account for the higher cost of living, property prices and rents, perhaps the obvious thing to have done would be to have had a different welfare cap for London.

Or is it a case of back to the early 1980s "on yer bike"

Stox - are you an insomniac ( by Stox 16 Today at 3:55 am )

blue

If your so wonderful Tory led so called government are so concerned about the working taxpayer, why do they not for the sake of the urgent need for growth in this country do the right thing and proper thing by forcing the rail companies to offer workers cheaper fares to get to work, instead of allowing rail to hike prices? Why do they not put restrictions upon those landlords who charge exhorbitant rents? Why not tax the working classes and middle classes less and make up for it by taxing those non productive multimillion pound excessive profit making companies who bleed their employees to death with their cheap labour tactics?

Adolf Hitler pulled his country out of the economic mire by creating jobs, albeit mostly by the manufacturing of arms and building for a war effort.......
Cameron should be looking to create jobs via a plan to rebuild our infrastructure. Instead all he is really interested in is taking from the needy so that he can soon as promised rid the better off of their higher rate tax situation. This is the goal blue, nothing whatsoever to do with assisting the average taxpayer, although of course it looks good in the eyes of those who can see no further than their noses.

Nobody has any reason to be "hoodwinked" when the evidence of Tory Values is clearly recorded. There is an ubroken link between the 1980s policy of dismantling centres that provided a focus for opposition - factories,mines, shipyards and large Councils - and the emasculation of government employees now.

The Tory aim is not "less government", but fewer opportunities for dissent.

Mel wrote:asrtrad1

It's all bloody disgusting and those who have been hoodwinked cant see it and those who are, or think they are for the time being "all right Jack" just dont care.
They are the ones who will squeal like pigs when and if it comes to them.. Then it will be too late and it's getting late already I fear.

Here I agree with you completely Mel, what Im looking forward too is when the TRUTH about the cap on benefit is finally out because I do not believe I.D.S or his figures the problem will come when people find themselves homeless but lets hope Mel that will be the straw that breaks the camels back and the UK will tell this ass hole of a Gov't exactly where to go.

bobby wrote:If only Clegg would jump ship.

The sea would spit the dirty bastard straight back out.

I have been hoping that Clegg would jump ship for a long time bobby, the sea might not like the taste but I hope it would hang on to him even though it would feel a bit queasy.

Stox 16 wrote:

blueturando wrote:Like I said before, it seems many of you are just out of touch with the public feeling here

MSN POLL

Have your say
Should the amount a family receives in benefits a year be capped at £26,000?

81 % Yes - 6,218 votes
19 % No - 1,439 votes

Total Responses: 7,657
Not scientifically valid. Results are updated every minute.

I am sure you poll is quite right Bluey. so being in the minority is nothing new to myself. However, even there are people who like me believe that I.D.S Figures do not quite add up. got a feeling that this will not work out as such a big saving that he believes it will be. saw a guy on the BBC cut his figures to bits. what's more used his own data to beat him with. all very interesting. we will soon see how this works out in the real world. will we not?

I Know that you are right Stox I am expecting all HELL to break loose when the TRUTH is out,

stox. As a matter of interest The resurgency plans for post war London was based on a report by Patrick Abercrombie, and called the Abercrombie Plan. This was to be the total modernisation of London. London suffered the same fate as Ancient Rome in that it started out as a small riverside settlement and without any plans simply grew where space allowed. We as the Romans ended up with a cluttered city with absolutely no order as to what was built and where. The Abercrombie plan was supposed to rectify that. Millions of Squids where spent on the planning of the much needed improvements, yet as today it was done on the cheap. Of all the much needed regeneration plans, Churchill Gardens, the Estate I lived in from 1952 till 1966 and my Mother lived in till 1986 was the only part of the plan completed. I believe there was the occasional building or two built, but nothing substantial like Churchill Gardens.

Agreed OW. The thing is many who are "alright Jack" are either too young to remember the past "Tory values", or either doing ok, wealthy, or just not bothered to seek the recorded past evidence, or are just not interested until they are personally badly affected by the cruel government measures.

As far a "dissent" is concerned towards the so called government, no amount dissent however strongly and justly applied will move them from their stubborm stance to have their way no matter what..

Mel wrote:Agreed OW. The thing is many who are "alright Jack" are either too young to remember the past "Tory values", or either doing ok, wealthy, or just not bothered to seek the recorded past evidence, or are just not interested until they are personally badly affected by the cruel government measures.

As far a "dissent" is concerned towards the so called government, no amount dissent however strongly and justly applied will move them from their stubborm stance to have their way no matter what..

Mel you do not think that any kind of decent will move the Gov't out of office, do you not think a general strike would make any difference ?

Yes Red, a lengthy GS would have a great effect IMO, as the outcome would affect many of the Tory loving wealthy and Camercon wouldn't want that now would he?
Problem is, it wont happen mainly because those who are just about ok and have a job of some kind are not going to back their fellow beings in case they lose out in some way. In any case the Unions have not the power they used to have, the Witch saw to that.

I fear we are saddled with these barstewards until the majority wake up and by then all evil policies with have been implemented and made irriversible and it will be far too late in the day in any case and the barstewards know it, just as the Witch did all those years ago.

Mel wrote:Yes Red, a lengthy GS would have a great effect IMO, as the outcome would affect many of the Tory loving wealthy and Camercon wouldn't want that now would he?
Problem is, it wont happen mainly because those who are just about ok and have a job of some kind are not going to back their fellow beings in case they lose out in some way. In any case the Unions have not the power they used to have, the Witch saw to that.

I fear we are saddled with these barstewards until the majority wake up and by then all evil policies with have been implemented and made irriversible and it will be far too late in the day in any case and the barstewards know it, just as the Witch did all those years ago.

Thanks for getting back so quickly Mel as someone who lived through Thatchers "Reign of Terror" that is why the Tories are detested here in Scotland, and I know from experience when the TRUTH of the cuts come out in there entirety I hope the whole of the UK will see for themselves the CRUEL and NASTY PARTY is alive and kicking and the DRIVEL there MPs have been spouting is only LIES LIES and more LIES, so I am hoping this will wake up the entire UK and compel them into action to put this Gov't back in its BOX.

Yes Red, a lengthy GS would have a great effect IMO

I think I have just woken from a dream and it's 1979....Cast your mind back Red and Mel...It didn't work then and it won't work now because a majority of the people do not support you. You lot are in a tiny minority now, so you can keep dreaming leftie militancy for as long as you like, the rest of us don't much care for it.

I am begining to wonder what party you will support in the next election, because as I see it Labour do not support you views either

blueturando wrote
"...It didn't work then and it won't work now because a majority of the people do not support you."

Exactly when is the "then" you are refering to. If you are refering to the strikes in the 70's and 80's, they where not General strikes, so what general strikes is it you mean, you know nothing of what a General Strike can achieve, as you have never experienced one, because if we had one, the Government would surely crumble, only the Country would also feel the down side of it as well. So it could be argued that the people not choosing (yet) to have a General Strike, shows them to be more responsible than all you pox arsed Tory's. as for the rest of the crap you have written, its probably the biggest load of bollocks I have read in ages.
I must go now and take my dog for a walk and I will engage in conversation with him, as I know it will be more intelligent than that stuff on your last post.

woof, woof, woof, woof. If you only knew what he has just called you?

Oops I must have hit a nerve...I guess the truth hurts. This is one of the reasons you would like to see nationalised industries, because you believe your precious unions could hold to country to ransom. Fortunately for us most are not nationlised anymore, so your bark will always be bigger than your bite....Hard luck old chap

blueturando wrote:Oops I must have hit a nerve...I guess the truth hurts. This is one of the reasons you would like to see nationalised industries, because you believe your precious unions could hold to country to ransom. Fortunately for us most are not nationlised anymore, so your bark will always be bigger than your bite....Hard luck old chap

If I may interrupt. I guess bluey, you would have people forced to work for nothing ?

Nobody works for nothing...not then and not now

blueturando wrote:Nobody works for nothing...not then and not now

True! Most work to just about scrape by.

True! Most work to just about scrape by

Yes youre probably right there and that includes many voters from all partys

witchfinder wrote:It seems to me that there is ( as per usual ) a clear divide in property prices between greater London and the rest of the country, in years gone by there was always different rules for London for obvious reasons.

At one time the wages councils had different rates for living in London to account for the higher cost of living, property prices and rents, perhaps the obvious thing to have done would be to have had a different welfare cap for London.

Or is it a case of back to the early 1980s "on yer bike"

Stox - are you an insomniac ( by Stox 16 Today at 3:55 am )

ha ha ha no Witchy. my company trades in Japan and the far east. its all down to time zones.. so when the far east is a wake we have to be as well. you just cannot talk to people if there in bed or we are in bed. so we work 24 hours per day with night and day shifts. but with Japan and the far east being a very big market for my company I work the night shift while my son works the day shift. but its never a good idea to leave it to the other team. so there you are.

bobby wrote:stox. As a matter of interest The resurgency plans for post war London was based on a report by Patrick Abercrombie, and called the Abercrombie Plan. This was to be the total modernisation of London. London suffered the same fate as Ancient Rome in that it started out as a small riverside settlement and without any plans simply grew where space allowed. We as the Romans ended up with a cluttered city with absolutely no order as to what was built and where. The Abercrombie plan was supposed to rectify that. Millions of Squids where spent on the planning of the much needed improvements, yet as today it was done on the cheap. Of all the much needed regeneration plans, Churchill Gardens, the Estate I lived in from 1952 till 1966 and my Mother lived in till 1986 was the only part of the plan completed. I believe there was the occasional building or two built, but nothing substantial like Churchill Gardens.

Thanks bobby
do you know I never knew about the Abercrombie plan. I will look this up and have a good read of it, as it sound most interesting.
Cheers for that Bobby. nice one.

blue.

With some respect please read my post thoroughly, as I said quite clearly that a General Stike is not a possibility. However the reason for that is not the poor reason you have given. Unfortunately those who at present still are fotunate enough to have jobs feel no need to strike. It is the Thatcher doctrine that still remains here in the UK, dog eat dog, nothing matters except money and profit to those who are "i'm alright Jack" brigade........

Tory ideology is just those two things, money, money ,money and as much profit to be made at any cost. That cost is born always by the workforce and the poor.
Nationalisation in most cases is helpful to the people, because it is provided by the people for the people, which means their are no fat cats creaming off the profits, whilst sitting on their fat arses along with the non productive geedy shareholders. Both of which in many cases stuff their ill gotten gains in offshore accounts.
These are the so called people the Tories look after and you seem to be a supporter of these parasites too .Tell me i'm wrong if you can blue.........

May I say Mel, you have spoken out superbly.  I cannot wait for Bluey's response, if she/he has one.