Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Red Cat Woman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:11 am

Cameron's problem with women
Unemployment, childcare and winning back the trust of older voters are just three of the pressing issues facing his future advisor for women

At a time of soaring female unemployment, perhaps any form of job creation is to be welcomed. But whoever benefits from David Cameron's decision to hire a special adviser for women certainly has their work cut out. So what lies in her (or perhaps even his) in-tray?

The immediate challenge is weaning the government off hasty gimmicks, such as the recent "porn filter" for home computers, which didn't quite live up to its billing. Attacking overtly sexualised music videos offers a rare chance for traditional rightwingers and feminists to agree, but while these issues do matter it's jobs, not culture wars, that swing votes.

The urgent economic issue is the C2 women (skilled manual and clerical workers) who are deserting Cameron in droves. Struggling with rising bills and afraid for their jobs, many were also hit by recent cuts in the childcare subsidy provided by Working Tax Credit: airy talk of scrapping maternity leave or unfair dismissal laws just angers them further. The new adviser must explain the political risk to her boss of Nick Clegg looking like the working woman's only friend in government.

She might like to make the case for urgently providing more affordable childcare to keep poorer parents in work, rather than scrapping a 50p tax rate to placate wealthy men. She might even ask why a planned universal credit designed to ensure work pays could end up leaving some second earners (mostly women) worse off.


Another key aim will be winning back older women infuriated by hasty changes to the pensionable age: should the government match Labour's creation of a separate Cabinet post for older people? Or at least find a rising star with whom older women identify, especially if Theresa May doesn't survive the borders scandal?

But the new adviser's biggest task must be to avoid future clunky decisions, by training ministers and officials automatically to stop and ask if any new wheeze would disproportionately hit women. Oh, and given the suspicion with which some male MPs now regard the "wimmin's agenda", she should also make time to watch her own back. Or hers might be a rather short-lived appointment.




So Woman pay to cut bankers tax to 45p. Still I am 100% sure that the Right wing while males on here will all reply and tell us woman how its all so worth while that we carry most of the cuts while there friends in the City get a nice tax break to keep them in the UK.
avatar
Red Cat Woman

Posts : 175
Join date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:28 am

Cameron's native chauvinism is going to bite him on the bum at the General Election. He doesn't seem to have noticed that 50% of the electorate is enough to consign him and his Party to the outer darkness.

Go for 'im, Ladies!
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11749
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Adele Carlyon on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:47 am

I'm still wondering if they're all off their heads! I mean, do they think that people, esp women will just forget about everything he's snatched off them and vote for them anyway? I can't understand the rationale, well unless he has some kind of delusion and fancies himself as a new age adonis! Personally, the thought of getting jiggy with any of those pigs in troughs make me wanna chuck me rice pudding back up! Ew!!!!! No
avatar
Adele Carlyon

Posts : 412
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : Wigan, Lancs

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Mel on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:48 am

Red Cat. No it certainly is not fair, Tories are notoriously unfair except of course to their own the wealthy.
I know that their so called "Gentlemens Club" Tory Constitutional clubs bar women from membership. They are arrogant chauvinsts always have been and this lot are worse than any before them in ALL respects.

They IMO care not too much about being popular as they realised right from word go they would not last more than one term in office. This is the very reason they scortch earth while implementy Tory ideology at it's worse in all haste. Little if any of their evil doings will be almost impossible to reverse and they know it, just as Maggot did on her watch.

A good post and thread my lady.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Mel on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:53 am

Adele "do they think that people, esp women will just forget about everything he's snatched off them and vote for them anyway?"

The answer good lady is that they dont care. They have five years of safe power implemented by themselves for themselves to give them just about enough time to transfer wealth from the masses to the few, which of course includes All on their front bench and many other Tories.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Red Cat Woman on Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:09 am

Adele Carlyon wrote:I'm still wondering if they're all off their heads! I mean, do they think that people, esp women will just forget about everything he's snatched off them and vote for them anyway? I can't understand the rationale, well unless he has some kind of delusion and fancies himself as a new age adonis! Personally, the thought of getting jiggy with any of those pigs in troughs make me wanna chuck me rice pudding back up! Ew!!!!! No

Hiya Hun
I happen to think he believes that us woman will stand bye and take this all. Well I happen you believe he is utterly wrong. As 40% of households are now headed by single mothers, this has concerning implications for tackling child poverty," said TUC general secretary Brendan Barber.

"It is vital the government tackles low pay and takes action to stop discrimination against mothers now."
.
"The gender pay gap has narrowed in the last 10 years by 5%, with the minimum wage being a significant factor," she said.
"But the government is determined to do more. That is why we will have a strong Equality Bill which we will set out to Parliament later this month."
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the government will have to reduce child poverty by 300,000 a year for the four years following 2006-07 to meet its target of halving child poverty by 2010-11.

Cameron's problem with women
Unemployment, childcare and winning back the trust of older voters are just three of the pressing issues facing his future advisor for women

At a time of soaring female unemployment, perhaps any form of job creation is to be welcomed. But whoever benefits from David Cameron's decision to hire a special adviser for women certainly has their work cut out. So what lies in her (or perhaps even his) in-tray?

The immediate challenge is weaning the government off hasty gimmicks, such as the recent "porn filter" for home computers, which didn't quite live up to its billing. Attacking overtly sexualised music videos offers a rare chance for traditional rightwingers and feminists to agree, but while these issues do matter it's jobs, not culture wars, that swing votes.

The urgent economic issue is the C2 women (skilled manual and clerical workers) who are deserting Cameron in droves. Struggling with rising bills and afraid for their jobs, many were also hit by recent cuts in the childcare subsidy provided by Working Tax Credit: airy talk of scrapping maternity leave or unfair dismissal laws just angers them further. The new adviser must explain the political risk to her boss of Nick Clegg looking like the working woman's only friend in government.

She might like to make the case for urgently providing more affordable childcare to keep poorer parents in work, rather than scrapping a 50p tax rate to placate wealthy men. She might even ask why a planned universal credit designed to ensure work pays could end up leaving some second earners (mostly women) worse off.

Another key aim will be winning back older women infuriated by hasty changes to the pensionable age: should the government match Labour's creation of a separate Cabinet post for older people? Or at least find a rising star with whom older women identify, especially if Theresa May doesn't survive the borders scandal?

But the new adviser's biggest task must be to avoid future clunky decisions, by training ministers and officials automatically to stop and ask if any new wheeze would disproportionately hit women. Oh, and given the suspicion with which some male MPs now regard the "wimmin's agenda", she should also make time to watch her own back. Or hers might be a rather short-lived appointment.


So Woman pay to cut bankers tax to 45p. Still I am 100% sure that the Right wing while males on here will all reply and tell us woman how its all so worth while that we carry most of the cuts while there friends in the City get a nice tax break to keep them in the UK.
avatar
Red Cat Woman

Posts : 175
Join date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Red Cat Woman on Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:15 am

Mel wrote:Red Cat. No it certainly is not fair, Tories are notoriously unfair except of course to their own the wealthy.
I know that their so called "Gentlemens Club" Tory Constitutional clubs bar women from membership. They are arrogant chauvinsts always have been and this lot are worse than any before them in ALL respects.

They IMO care not too much about being popular as they realised right from word go they would not last more than one term in office. This is the very reason they scortch earth while implementy Tory ideology at it's worse in all haste. Little if any of their evil doings will be almost impossible to reverse and they know it, just as Maggot did on her watch.

A good post and thread my lady.

I cannot agree more with you Mel. Yet this is coming from the so-called party of the family. to me this is little more than so sick joke and a joke that is amid at woman, young and Sick and Old. Well the joke is over. I have got the message. time to kick them out of office and i hope many Woman like me share this view too. as this sort of think has to end.

Official figures showed of the 28,000 who were newly jobless in the final three months of 2011, 22,000 were women.
The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance increased by 7,200 to 1.61million, the Office for National Statistics said, while average earnings rose 1.4 per cent in the year to January, a fall of half a percentage point compared to the previous month.
The overall unemployment rate was 8.4 per cent meanwhile.
The TUC said the coalition government was the most 'female-unfriendly' in living memory.
'Women are being disproportionately hit by the pay freezes, pension reforms and massive jobs cull in the public sector,' said TUC general secretary Brendan Barber.
'Basic employment rights are under threat and refuges for victims of domestic violence are being closed. The evidence is clear - this is the most female-unfriendly government in living memory.'
Emma Stewart, of Women Like Us, which supports working mothers, said: 'The creation of more quality part-time jobs would be a "win-win" for businesses and families. Employers need talented, cost-effective staff. Women need quality part-time jobs at their level that they can fit with family

Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, said ministers were being 'complacent' with female employment.
'The surge in women's unemployment is reaching shocking levels but instead of helping more families into work, next month's cuts to tax credits are set to make thousands better off if they quit their jobs and start claiming out of work benefits,' he said.
A government spokesman said: 'The government is making a real difference to women's lives by creating more opportunities and removing barriers to career progression.'

While the number of unemployed women rose 22,000 to 1.13million, youth unemployment jumped 16,000 to 1.04million.
Public sector employment fell by 37,000 to six million, while private sector employment rose by 45,000 to 23million, with total employment rising by 9,000.
Unison said 625 public sector jobs had been lost every day since the coalition was formed, which amounts to one job loss every two minutes and 18 seconds.
The north-east of England had the highest unemployment rate of 10.8 per cent, followed by London on 10.2 per cent.
Matt Gascoigne, executive director at recruitment consultants Badenoch & Clark said the figures, released a week ahead of chancellor George Osborne's Budget statement, 'continued to paint a bleak picture' for the UK economy.

Paul Kenny, general secretary of GMB union, said the economy was 'in a hole being dug deeper' by the deflationary policies of the government.
Martina Milburn, chief executive of youth charity the Prince's Trust, said the news was 'crushing' for young people.
'The latest unemployment statistics are a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly,' commented Graeme Leach, chief economist at the Institute of Directors.
'The good is the 9,000 increase in total employment. The bad is the 50,000 fall in full-time employment and the rise in both measures of unemployment. Without doubt the ugly is the fall in wage growth to one per cent which means real pay is still falling sharply.'
Commenting on Facebook, Metro reader Kurt Constable said: 'More can always be done with unemployment in the goods times as well as the bad like now. But they [the government] have increased those out of work via cutbacks and poor policies and expect a magic wand in the private sector to create jobs which they have not in any significant number.

'Bit like the 80s miners out of work but no real decent effort to get them new jobs or skills.'
avatar
Red Cat Woman

Posts : 175
Join date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Red Cat Woman on Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:32 am

Mel wrote:Adele "do they think that people, esp women will just forget about everything he's snatched off them and vote for them anyway?"

The answer good lady is that they dont care. They have five years of safe power implemented by themselves for themselves to give them just about enough time to transfer wealth from the masses to the few, which of course includes All on their front bench and many other Tories.

How true, what's more Mel, they really do believe that Woman will not true out in any great number. this last budget was so Anti Woman that I believe bear some real votes from woman coming out in some real numbers this time. its high time us woman said NO to these sort of cuts. as its woman who are facing some of the biggest income loss than any other group
avatar
Red Cat Woman

Posts : 175
Join date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Mel on Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:05 am

The problem with many of the electorate is apathy. Some "cant be bothered to vote" some still wrongly and in ignorance think that Labour and Brown were responsible for the Global Crisis. There are those who will take anything lying down and others who do not understand politics nor are they interested. Those too young to remember Thatcher's destruction.

The question is who will those who voted Lib Dem vote for in the next election? IMO the overwhelming feeling is that the Tories will be OUT and they know it which makes for a very rough ride for the masses for the next two years. The only way is total walkout by all working people to bring these sods down. It wont happen, not in this country of "put up or shut up"
down trodden weakies. Unless of course if you women rise up. Start the ball rolling Red Cat.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Red Cat Woman on Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:28 am

Mel wrote:The problem with many of the electorate is apathy. Some "cant be bothered to vote" some still wrongly and in ignorance think that Labour and Brown were responsible for the Global Crisis. There are those who will take anything lying down and others who do not understand politics nor are they interested. Those too young to remember Thatcher's destruction.

The question is who will those who voted Lib Dem vote for in the next election? IMO the overwhelming feeling is that the Tories will be OUT and they know it which makes for a very rough ride for the masses for the next two years. The only way is total walkout by all working people to bring these sods down. It wont happen, not in this country of "put up or shut up"
down trodden weakies. Unless of course if you women rise up. Start the ball rolling Red Cat.


Hi Mel
just woke up, as i have to get into London. but quickly, Its high time Woman woke up to the fact that we have a big say in who wins the election. but up to now Woman for what ever reason have failed to use this to defend the very things that we as a group need. I believe it is changing slowly. I hope that others will also start to support a more fair share of the economy and rights to fair wages. I will reply better later Mel. but most get ready for work now

Red Cat XXX
avatar
Red Cat Woman

Posts : 175
Join date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by sickchip on Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:57 am

Its high time Men woke up to the fact that we have a big say in who wins the election. but up to now Men for what ever reason have failed to use this to defend the very things that we as a group need. I believe it is changing slowly. I hope that others will also start to support a more fair share of the economy and rights to fair wages.
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1149
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Stox 16 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:24 pm

sickchip wrote:Its high time Men woke up to the fact that we have a big say in who wins the election. but up to now Men for what ever reason have failed to use this to defend the very things that we as a group need. I believe it is changing slowly. I hope that others will also start to support a more fair share of the economy and rights to fair wages.

Well this is a surprised and whats more a very good topic. well posted Red Cat Woman. yes I cannot agree more with all that has already been very well put. your quite right sickchip in saying its high time woman used there economic power to gain a far greater share in the UK economy. Red Cat Woman has laid out a most interesting agruement before us all. something that i for one feel is long over due. its given me a great deal of food for thought and will need to read the whole topic more carefully and then reply i hope in full.
avatar
Stox 16

Posts : 1064
Join date : 2011-12-18
Age : 58
Location : Suffolk in the UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Stox 16 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:26 pm

Red Cat Woman wrote:
Mel wrote:Red Cat. No it certainly is not fair, Tories are notoriously unfair except of course to their own the wealthy.
I know that their so called "Gentlemens Club" Tory Constitutional clubs bar women from membership. They are arrogant chauvinsts always have been and this lot are worse than any before them in ALL respects.

They IMO care not too much about being popular as they realised right from word go they would not last more than one term in office. This is the very reason they scortch earth while implementy Tory ideology at it's worse in all haste. Little if any of their evil doings will be almost impossible to reverse and they know it, just as Maggot did on her watch.

A good post and thread my lady.

I cannot agree more with you Mel. Yet this is coming from the so-called party of the family. to me this is little more than so sick joke and a joke that is amid at woman, young and Sick and Old. Well the joke is over. I have got the message. time to kick them out of office and i hope many Woman like me share this view too. as this sort of think has to end.

Official figures showed of the 28,000 who were newly jobless in the final three months of 2011, 22,000 were women.
The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance increased by 7,200 to 1.61million, the Office for National Statistics said, while average earnings rose 1.4 per cent in the year to January, a fall of half a percentage point compared to the previous month.
The overall unemployment rate was 8.4 per cent meanwhile.
The TUC said the coalition government was the most 'female-unfriendly' in living memory.
'Women are being disproportionately hit by the pay freezes, pension reforms and massive jobs cull in the public sector,' said TUC general secretary Brendan Barber.
'Basic employment rights are under threat and refuges for victims of domestic violence are being closed. The evidence is clear - this is the most female-unfriendly government in living memory.'
Emma Stewart, of Women Like Us, which supports working mothers, said: 'The creation of more quality part-time jobs would be a "win-win" for businesses and families. Employers need talented, cost-effective staff. Women need quality part-time jobs at their level that they can fit with family

Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, said ministers were being 'complacent' with female employment.
'The surge in women's unemployment is reaching shocking levels but instead of helping more families into work, next month's cuts to tax credits are set to make thousands better off if they quit their jobs and start claiming out of work benefits,' he said.
A government spokesman said: 'The government is making a real difference to women's lives by creating more opportunities and removing barriers to career progression.'

While the number of unemployed women rose 22,000 to 1.13million, youth unemployment jumped 16,000 to 1.04million.
Public sector employment fell by 37,000 to six million, while private sector employment rose by 45,000 to 23million, with total employment rising by 9,000.
Unison said 625 public sector jobs had been lost every day since the coalition was formed, which amounts to one job loss every two minutes and 18 seconds.
The north-east of England had the highest unemployment rate of 10.8 per cent, followed by London on 10.2 per cent.
Matt Gascoigne, executive director at recruitment consultants Badenoch & Clark said the figures, released a week ahead of chancellor George Osborne's Budget statement, 'continued to paint a bleak picture' for the UK economy.

Paul Kenny, general secretary of GMB union, said the economy was 'in a hole being dug deeper' by the deflationary policies of the government.
Martina Milburn, chief executive of youth charity the Prince's Trust, said the news was 'crushing' for young people.
'The latest unemployment statistics are a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly,' commented Graeme Leach, chief economist at the Institute of Directors.
'The good is the 9,000 increase in total employment. The bad is the 50,000 fall in full-time employment and the rise in both measures of unemployment. Without doubt the ugly is the fall in wage growth to one per cent which means real pay is still falling sharply.'
Commenting on Facebook, Metro reader Kurt Constable said: 'More can always be done with unemployment in the goods times as well as the bad like now. But they [the government] have increased those out of work via cutbacks and poor policies and expect a magic wand in the private sector to create jobs which they have not in any significant number.

'Bit like the 80s miners out of work but no real decent effort to get them new jobs or skills.'

A most interesting arguement and with good data too. well posted once again.
avatar
Stox 16

Posts : 1064
Join date : 2011-12-18
Age : 58
Location : Suffolk in the UK

Back to top Go down

Hell Hath No Fury...

Post by AwfulTruth on Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:54 am


We thought they may have brains well fit
To do some good in times so bad
Yet seem to have brains of fetid shxt
So now we feel we've all been had!
Oh dear, dear me what has he done?
We've been duped by a man with the face of a bum!

KMWarwick


Oh dear me what a tangled web of incompetence this government does weave!

Obviously Cameron and his gang of intellectually challenged morons are out to fleece the country, as a whole (via creative quangos that employ their mates) , including our part-time chancellor, Osborne, who, it is reliably reported, spends MORE time on his private business interests than he does doing his job (which he is too incompetent to do properly anyway).

This gang of millionaires is nothing more than a group of pseudo-auteur poseurs out to line their own pockets. Just wait for the next catastrophe - the next disaster of towering incompetence.

Women losing out? It's all grist to the mill for this government of cynical tinkering, gerrymandering and clumsy manipulation and let's face it, as William Congreve, in The Mourning Bride, 1697, once said: 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!" and so if that is really true, get mad, get really mad and...

VOTE THIS SHOWER OUT OF OFFICE GIRLS! Wink




AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by sickchip on Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:32 am

We could blame the Lib-Dems who have the power to stop the tories in their tracks; but. alas, the lib-dems have shown themselves to be spineless cowards without any integrity, their ideals corrupted and in thrall to power, and appear to be entirely without shame or sense as they seem intent on seeing their own party commit political suicide.......the lib-dems are hammering nails into their own coffin lid.
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1149
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by AwfulTruth on Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:34 pm

sickchip wrote:We could blame the Lib-Dems who have the power to stop the tories in their tracks; but. alas, the lib-dems have shown themselves to be spineless cowards without any integrity, their ideals corrupted and in thrall to power, and appear to be entirely without shame or sense as they seem intent on seeing their own party commit political suicide.......the lib-dems are hammering nails into their own coffin lid.


I really could not have expressed the above any better, myself! I completely concur... Basketball

I voted for the Lib-Dems last time around, but NEVER again; I was duped!

I will be voting Labour in future for three reasons:

Protest vote confused ; Confidence in Ed scratch (blind and informed faith until proven misplaced), and the belief that NO other party is viable clown .

It is a narrow choice, but someone has to be better than the present shower of assorted rabid and dead cats and dogs. cat

They shoot horses, don't they! bounce


AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by tlttf on Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:42 pm

Are talking about a government that took 2million people out of paying any tax, or the previous incompetents that removed the 10p tax. Just thought I'd ask?

tlttf
Banned

Posts : 1029
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Ivan on Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:40 pm

tlttf. Still doing your best to mislead, are you? Have you apologised yet for posting lies about Ken Livingstone's video?

Before this government has finished, it will have taken a lot more than two million people out of income tax, 710,000 public sector workers for a start. You don't pay income tax when you haven't got a job. You don't pay income tax when you're very poor, but you do pay extra VAT now, after this government increased the rate to 20% despite having "no plans" to do so.

This government's taking school meals away from 350,000 of the poorest children in the country, why aren't you complaining about that? Why aren't you complaining about the reduction in disability living allowance which, despite his millions, Cameron claimed for his own son? Why don't you complain about terminally ill people being forced to undergo fitness-for-work tests? No, just carry on being selective and misleading. Perhaps your posts should carry a health warning.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7044
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by oftenwrong on Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:27 pm

Television documentaries are finding no shortage of mothers who would be crazy to continue working under Osborne's new diktat. The children of Part-timers who earn just a single Pound over the limit of entitlement to housing benefit or supplementary benefit will no longer be eligible for free school dinners, because free school dinners now only come together with those benefits.

avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11749
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by AwfulTruth on Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:37 pm

tlttf wrote:Are talking about a government that took 2million people out of paying any tax, or the previous incompetents that removed the 10p tax. Just thought I'd ask?

Land

You are so sexy when you get angry! Wink

Seriously - what choice is there? A reply in no fewer than 1000 words required! geek

AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by AwfulTruth on Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:40 pm

Attention all intelligent, reflective, discerning, cerebrally competent big gobs: you KNOW it is all about incompetent idiots running the country!

Ivan is spot-on right, in a left kind of way, though probably not as left as I am!

Be afraid - be very afraid; Cameron still has time to kill us all!

AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by trevorw2539 on Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:52 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:Attention all intelligent, reflective, discerning, cerebrally competent big gobs: you KNOW it is all about incompetent idiots running the country!

Ivan is spot-on right, in a left kind of way, though probably not as left as I am!

Be afraid - be very afraid; Cameron still has time to kill us all!

Hang on a minute. I don't claim any of the above attributes, but even I know about the 'incompetent idiots'.

I know nothing about philosophy apart from what little I have 'come across' while studying, but wasn't it a philosopher - Hume - who said, against most other opinions of his day, that 'Human desire rather than Human reason ruled human behaviour', therefore 'reason should be subject the human passions'. Or words to that effect.

It seems to me that this is the way of the Tory party. What they 'passionately' want, not the reasoned policy that's needed.


Last edited by trevorw2539 on Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : emphasis)
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1346
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by oftenwrong on Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:58 pm

Most people are vaguely aware of the part which Iceland played in the Banking Crisis of 2008, but the interesting thing is the way they have set about recovering from that disaster. They sacked the men who had been conspiratorially running Government, and the men who had been allowed to wreck the Banks.

Iceland has a female Prime Minister, Johanna Sigurdar dottir. The Minister of Education is Katrin Jacobsdottir, and Birna Einarsdottir is Chief Executive Officer of Islandsbanki. Other females run Iceland's largest Insurance Company, and also an International aluminium production company.

Maybe Dave could pick up some hints.

The Independent Magazine 21 April 2012
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11749
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by bobby on Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:23 pm

Theres a lot of Dottirs in Iceland, I bet they have a good helf service.
avatar
bobby

Posts : 1939
Join date : 2011-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Stox 16 on Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:54 am

AwfulTruth wrote:

We thought they may have brains well fit
To do some good in times so bad
Yet seem to have brains of fetid shxt
So now we feel we've all been had!
Oh dear, dear me what has he done?
We've been duped by a man with the face of a bum!

KMWarwick


Oh dear me what a tangled web of incompetence this government does weave!

Obviously Cameron and his gang of intellectually challenged morons are out to fleece the country, as a whole (via creative quangos that employ their mates) , including our part-time chancellor, Osborne, who, it is reliably reported, spends MORE time on his private business interests than he does doing his job (which he is too incompetent to do properly anyway).

This gang of millionaires is nothing more than a group of pseudo-auteur poseurs out to line their own pockets. Just wait for the next catastrophe - the next disaster of towering incompetence.

Women losing out? It's all grist to the mill for this government of cynical tinkering, gerrymandering and clumsy manipulation and let's face it, as William Congreve, in The Mourning Bride, 1697, once said: 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!" and so if that is really true, get mad, get really mad and...

VOTE THIS SHOWER OUT OF OFFICE GIRLS! Wink




Hear hear

]b]VOTE THIS SHOWER OUT OF OFFICE GIRLS![/b] Wink
avatar
Stox 16

Posts : 1064
Join date : 2011-12-18
Age : 58
Location : Suffolk in the UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by AwfulTruth on Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:25 am

OFTENWRONG wrote:

Most people are vaguely aware of the part which Iceland played in the Banking Crisis


This is a dreadful slur on a great British supermarket chain - what about Tesco or Sainsbury's?

Poor Iceland - I do so adore their party food, such as the packets of soggy newspaper rounds topped with cheesy gunk and bits of desiccated bung, and their lovely vol-au-vents filled with processed baby vomit mixed with minced roadkill! clown Wink


AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by AwfulTruth on Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:28 am

Trevor quoted:

'Human desire rather than Human reason ruled human behaviour', therefore 'reason should be subject the human passions'

Are you promulgating that there should be one big bang love-in? Wink

AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by trevorw2539 on Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:03 am

AwfulTruth wrote:Trevor quoted:

'Human desire rather than Human reason ruled human behaviour', therefore 'reason should be subject the human passions'

Are you promulgating that there should be one big bang love-in? Wink

Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed silent
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1346
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Red Cat Woman on Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:23 am

tlttf wrote:Are talking about a government that took 2million people out of paying any tax, or the previous incompetents that removed the 10p tax. Just thought I'd ask?

is this all you have to say? woman and families on low incomes are being cut to bits and all you can come out with is 10p from the previous Government. Do you have a mother or sister? if so I am 100% sure you will tell me how happy they are that many woman and there families face cuts in jobs and incomes. I cannot believe that anyone would of posted such a reply. still I guess your a Right wing male who believes in all this total economic hogwash
avatar
Red Cat Woman

Posts : 175
Join date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Red Cat Woman on Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:25 am

Stox 16 wrote:
AwfulTruth wrote:

We thought they may have brains well fit
To do some good in times so bad
Yet seem to have brains of fetid shxt
So now we feel we've all been had!
Oh dear, dear me what has he done?
We've been duped by a man with the face of a bum!

KMWarwick


Oh dear me what a tangled web of incompetence this government does weave!

Obviously Cameron and his gang of intellectually challenged morons are out to fleece the country, as a whole (via creative quangos that employ their mates) , including our part-time chancellor, Osborne, who, it is reliably reported, spends MORE time on his private business interests than he does doing his job (which he is too incompetent to do properly anyway).

This gang of millionaires is nothing more than a group of pseudo-auteur poseurs out to line their own pockets. Just wait for the next catastrophe - the next disaster of towering incompetence.

Women losing out? It's all grist to the mill for this government of cynical tinkering, gerrymandering and clumsy manipulation and let's face it, as William Congreve, in The Mourning Bride, 1697, once said: 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!" and so if that is really true, get mad, get really mad and...

VOTE THIS SHOWER OUT OF OFFICE GIRLS! Wink




Hear hear

]b]VOTE THIS SHOWER OUT OF OFFICE GIRLS![/b] Wink

Too right we will, I hope Stox xx
avatar
Red Cat Woman

Posts : 175
Join date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Red Cat Woman on Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:33 am

sickchip wrote:We could blame the Lib-Dems who have the power to stop the tories in their tracks; but. alas, the lib-dems have shown themselves to be spineless cowards without any integrity, their ideals corrupted and in thrall to power, and appear to be entirely without shame or sense as they seem intent on seeing their own party commit political suicide.......the lib-dems are hammering nails into their own coffin lid.

Hi Sickchip
I cannot find the right words to express my utter contempt for the Lib/Dems and there roll in all of this. they are not a party worth the name. there little more than a mockery and quite contemptuous of woman and families who are suffering at the hand of this bunch of Tory right wing zealots.
avatar
Red Cat Woman

Posts : 175
Join date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by sickchip on Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:48 am

Red Cat Woman wrote:

Hi Sickchip
I cannot find the right words to express my utter contempt for the Lib/Dems and there roll in all of this. they are not a party worth the name. there little more than a mockery and quite contemptuous of woman and families who are suffering at the hand of this bunch of Tory right wing zealots.

Red Cat Woman,

I totally agree with you. I guess it just shows how power corrupts and that most of our politicians are simply careerists without any integrity, or sense of vocation.

Our supposed democracy is a stagnant, rancid mess.



Are Labour doing enough? Labour know they're sitting on the seesaw opposite the tories and that sooner or later, because we are basically a two party supposed democracy, they'll be in the up seat on that seesaw again.....the status quo is maintained and the radical changes required won't happen.

Mps in opposition are paid the same as those in government - perhaps they should get 33% less. A financial incentive might make the lazy sods try a little harder to connect with real people in the real world - instead of playing party politics in the house of games we call parliament.
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1149
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Red Cat Woman on Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:11 am

sickchip wrote:
Red Cat Woman wrote:

Hi Sickchip
I cannot find the right words to express my utter contempt for the Lib/Dems and there roll in all of this. they are not a party worth the name. there little more than a mockery and quite contemptuous of woman and families who are suffering at the hand of this bunch of Tory right wing zealots.

Red Cat Woman,

I totally agree with you. I guess it just shows how power corrupts and that most of our politicians are simply careerists without any integrity, or sense of vocation.

Our supposed democracy is a stagnant, rancid mess.



Are Labour doing enough? Labour know they're sitting on the seesaw opposite the tories and that sooner or later, because we are basically a two party supposed democracy, they'll be in the up seat on that seesaw again.....the status quo is maintained and the radical changes required won't happen.

Mps in opposition are paid the same as those in government - perhaps they should get 33% less. A financial incentive might make the lazy sods try a little harder to connect with real people in the real world - instead of playing party politics in the house of games we call parliament.

Are Labour doing enough? a good question Sickchip, but lets put it like this. can they do any worse? I think not myself. its seems to me that this government is hell bent on supporting just one small group of people within the City. what good is that doing the rest of us? All I know is as a 28 year old woman I cannot think of a worse government. The damage being done to us right now is hard to get my head around. did you see what Stox wrote on an other thread. he gave a economic up-date that has left me cold. In fact I just cannot ever write a good reply to his post. you should just take a good look at what he said. its hard to believe all this is going on right now. I already know who I will be voting for now
avatar
Red Cat Woman

Posts : 175
Join date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:32 pm

Even a dispassionate view of the recent record of mistakes from the Tory-led coalition makes me feel almost sorry for their supporters. The entire Press is nipping at their ankles, and the culmination will surely be Cameron's appearance in person next June before the Parliamentary Committee on phone-hacking. Lie down with dogs and you'll get up with fleas.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11749
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Stox 16 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:07 am

Unemployment, childcare and winning back the trust of older voters are just three of the pressing issues facing his future advisor for women

At a time of soaring female unemployment, perhaps any form of job creation is to be welcomed. But whoever benefits from David Cameron's decision to hire a special adviser for women certainly has their work cut out. So what lies in her (or perhaps even his) in-tray?

The immediate challenge is weaning the government off hasty gimmicks, such as the recent "porn filter" for home computers, which didn't quite live up to its billing. Attacking overtly sexualised music videos offers a rare chance for traditional rightwinger


do matter it's jobs, not culture wars, that swing votes.

The urgent economic issue is the C2 women (skilled manual and clerical workers) who are deserting Cameron in droves. Struggling with rising bills and afraid for their jobs, many were also hit by recent cuts in the childcare subsidy provided by Working Tax Credit: airy talk of scrapping maternity leave or unfair dismissal laws just angers them further. The new adviser must explain the political risk to her boss of Nick Clegg looking like the working woman's only friend in government.

She might like to make the case for urgently providing more affordable childcare to keep poorer parents in work, rather than scrapping a 50p tax rate to placate wealthy men. She might even ask why a planned universal credit designed to ensure work pays could end up leaving some second earners (mostly women) worse off.

Another key aim will be winning back older women infuriated by hasty changes to the pensionable age: should the government match Labour's creation of a separate Cabinet post for older people? Or at least find a rising star with whom older women identify, especially if Theresa May doesn't survive the borders scandal?

But the new adviser's biggest task must be to avoid future clunky decisions, by training ministers and officials automatically to stop and ask if any new wheeze would disproportionately hit women. Oh, and given the suspicion with which some male MPs now regard the "wimmin's agenda", she should also make time to watch her own back. Or hers might be a rather short-lived appointment.
avatar
Stox 16

Posts : 1064
Join date : 2011-12-18
Age : 58
Location : Suffolk in the UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by AwfulTruth on Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:24 am

Stox

I truly believe that if the government was really interested in gender parity in all things, this would not actually be a singular gender issue but a question of total gender equality - et al.

Gender should be invisible and irrelevant and any future government must look at ways to ensure overall parity in all matters - especially sexist wage discriminatory practices that MUST be stopped.

We also need to repeal some of this excremental idiocy that sees women and mothers being pushed further into penury by this ruthlessly and toweringly moronic government of spivs, liars and thieves.

BUT, the issue always has been equitable parity that must be enshrined in policy and law so as to eradicate this ludicrous and unjust system of unjust politics.

Apart from that we have a government set on destroying our education and health systems on the altar of greed, treasury ram-raiding and overt incompetence.

It's a big altar, because this chimeric monster is a great big one! Basketball

AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by AwfulTruth on Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:27 am

oftenwrong wrote:Even a dispassionate view of the recent record of mistakes from the Tory-led coalition makes me feel almost sorry for their supporters. The entire Press is nipping at their ankles, and the culmination will surely be Cameron's appearance in person next June before the Parliamentary Committee on phone-hacking. Lie down with dogs and you'll get up with fleas.

Yes, in the same way I felt sad for Thatcher when she was publicly booted out of office... Suspect

AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Stox 16 on Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:11 am

AwfulTruth wrote:Stox

I truly believe that if the government was really interested in gender parity in all things, this would not actually be a singular gender issue but a question of total gender equality - et al.

Gender should be invisible and irrelevant and any future government must look at ways to ensure overall parity in all matters - especially sexist wage discriminatory practices that MUST be stopped.

We also need to repeal some of this excremental idiocy that sees women and mothers being pushed further into penury by this ruthlessly and toweringly moronic government of spivs, liars and thieves.

BUT, the issue always has been equitable parity that must be enshrined in policy and law so as to eradicate this ludicrous and unjust system of unjust politics.

Apart from that we have a government set on destroying our education and health systems on the altar of greed, treasury ram-raiding and overt incompetence.

It's a big altar, because this chimeric monster is a great big one! Basketball

Hi AwfulTruth
All the points you make are so very fair. what's more your totally right when you talk about a moronic government. as it has to be one of the most unjust governments for many a year. So I guess i should not be so surprised by there action. yet I am. as I cannot believe that anyone is so stupid as to up-set such a large group as female voters. can you?
avatar
Stox 16

Posts : 1064
Join date : 2011-12-18
Age : 58
Location : Suffolk in the UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by AwfulTruth on Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:36 am

Yes Stox, it beggars belief and is just so bizarre and grotesque it is difficult to understand just what a bunch of morons Cameron's coterie really are! clown

AwfulTruth
Deactivated

Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-11-16
Location : Cambridgeshire

http://www.rhodesgreece.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Stox 16 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:40 am

AwfulTruth wrote:Yes Stox, it beggars belief and is just so bizarre and grotesque it is difficult to understand just what a bunch of morons Cameron's coterie really are! clown

AwlfulTruth
I will very interested to see what the voting figures will be for female voters in May. as Red Cat woman I think made the point that only 13% of female voters would in fact vote Tory. I wonder if it will be this low come the day. What you best guess on females voters that you know?
avatar
Stox 16

Posts : 1064
Join date : 2011-12-18
Age : 58
Location : Suffolk in the UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum