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.

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

Before anyone accuses me of breach of copyright, I have received written permission from the author of the following piece to post it here in its entirety:-

An open letter to Iain Duncan Smith
(Submitted by Jill Segger on 30 January 2012 - 3:11pm)

Dear Iain

You once described yourself as “the quiet man”. It didn't quite work for you at the time, which is a pity, because quietness implies a capacity for reflection, listening and, in the words of our Quaker 'Advices and Queries', for finding space to “consider it possible you may be mistaken”. These are not qualities which are much in evidence among our noisier politicians.

You have recently been loud in your insistence that capping benefits at £26,000 will not push families further into poverty and that “They're not suffering. The point about this is that what makes you suffer is the state that plunges you into dependency."

A quiet moment to consider some of the facts? In many areas of London, the cost of accommodation for larger families is at least £400 a week. That's £20,800 a year (paid directly to the landlord), leaving these families with £5,200 to feed and clothe themselves and to meet all their other costs. It shouldn't be too hard to see the potential for suffering here. Your solution - that they should rehouse to less expensive accommodation in cheaper areas - takes no account of some facts you might want to think about were your own family to be thrust into this situation.

Children will be moved from their schools – yes, that also happens to people who are more fortunately placed – but they usually have some choice as to the best time to relocate in relation to the school year and the proximity of important exams. A good level of disposable income also enables the choice of a desirable catchment area. Those who are forced out of their homes by hardship are powerless to exercise these choices.

People who are already under the strain of severe financial difficulty will be removed from their circle of friends and relations. This uprooting of families from their support systems will inevitably lead to an increase in instances of mental and physical ill-health. And even if you take no account of the human distress, remember that both educational failure and illness have to be paid for.

Sometimes being quiet is to collude with rank injustice. It is to your credit that you have not overtly bought into the nastier end of populist comment on the lines of “they shouldn't have kids they can't afford” (indeed, that could be a dodgy area for a practising Catholic to venture upon), but neither have you chosen to acknowledge that misfortune can befall anyone. A responsibly conceived and previously sustainable family may be plunged into need by redundancy or chronic illness.

And then there is the implicit assumption that all families receiving housing benefit are both unemployed and 'workshy'. In fact, only one in eight are unemployed. So there are questions to be asked as to why you have chosen silence on the matter of low pay and rapacious landlords. This is a combination which plays a malign role in perpetuating welfare dependency and is not addressed by your proposals for a 'Universal Credit' benefit.

Where benefit recipients are out of work, how is their situation to be helped by forcing them to move to cheaper areas? One of the reasons for lower housing costs is high unemployment. So a reduction in housing benefit, particularly in London, will have the effect of pushing people into the areas of highest unemployment. How will this help them to escape welfare dependency?

When Beveridge wrote his blueprint for our welfare system, it could reasonably be seen as a temporary 'safety net.' There was much less unemployment and affordable social housing was plentiful. Seventy years on, that is far from being the case and it is unjust to use the conditions from so long ago to inform today's rhetoric and decision-making.

EM Forster wrote that “Money pads the edge of things”. Decisions made by well padded politicians, however well-meaning, can be way off the mark. I believe you are genuinely concerned about deprivation and that you have done more to inform yourself about its causes and effects than most of your colleagues.

But what you have said and left unsaid in relation to the benefit cap, indicates that you nonetheless observe the situation through the lenses of comfort and status. You are described as a millionaire and it is reasonable to assume that an ex-army officer, former party leader and now cabinet minister, will not suffer from want of means nor from the lack of confidence and capacity which may arise from deprivation.

Causing fear and distress to the most vulnerable and colluding with the stirring up of hostility towards them is cruel and wrong. You claim that they are "not being punished" but it is hard to justify that interpretation. Benefit claimants - a wide and disparate group - are a soft target and they should not be made to suffer still further for the failures of politicians and the excesses of bankers.

It is my hope that the 'quiet man' might take a little time out to distance himself from received opinion and 'scrounger' rhetoric and to do some joined up thinking on the long term personal, social and economic effects of the policies on which he speaks.

Yours in peace,

Jill Segger

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/16186

------

© Dr Jill Segger is associate director of the beliefs and values think-tank Ekklesia, which has been honoured to work with disabled and sick people on research and action related to the Welfare Reform Bill (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/welfarereformbill), particularly the promotion of the Spartacus Report on 'Responsible Reform' (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/responsiblereformDLA).

bobby wrote: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.

Bluey, I am posting the same post again, as you failed to answer the key question I asked.
Exactly when is the "then" you are refering to etc.
The answer you came up with was again up to your usual standards, and quite frankly a load of bollocks.

Bluey 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"

which should start with "Oops I, like the rest of my Party have dropped a clanger. Firstly you wouldn't know how to hit my nerves, you think far too much of yourself bluey.
As for nationalisation, yes I fully believe that our Utilities should be in the control of the people, and not proffit making shareholders. We have all seen the unfare rises in cost of each and every Utility sold off mostly by the phucking Tory's. As for the Unions, yes I believe in them, even though I own and run my own Businesses, I treat my employee's very fairly and they in turn treat me the same. So there is a lesson to be learnt, if the company's treated their employee's fairly, there wouldn't be a need for any trades Unions. But allas its your Tory's who continually turn the screws on the plebs, then wonder why they do as little as they can, for the pittance they earne.
By the way, does your Boss realise he/she is paying you to work as opposed to writing all your crap on these boards. I know you will come up with some excuse, for no other reason than you are a Tory, but I'm sure your boss would rather get what he/she's paying for. Or perhaps you are no better than those you continually insult, and want something for nothing.

What a pity that such a reasoned and sensible case is so wasted on any Tory mind. Appealing to their 'better nature' is futile since they have none,. and actually enjoy the inflicting of misfortune on people who cannot fend or speak up for themselves. Such is the insensitivity of the present bunch of Hooray Henries in the Cabinet that not even the most persuasive and beseeching argument would cause any embarrassment ito them. They are a vile and nauseating shower and only time will see them suffer the ignominy they will so richly deserve...

bluey. Just one more point. You infer that strikes do not work. Then pray tell me, what happened to the Callaghan Government, and led to years of Fascism.

blueturando wrote:

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

Your quite right Blue this is not 1979, people are not as easily duped as in 1979 even me I stupidly thought a woman might understand peoples problems I must as been as thick as two short planks to believe she had any FEELINGS at all.

We may be in a tiny minority or you could have your figures wrong but that will not last for much longer and I don't know about yourself or any body else's voting preferences I WILL BE VOTING LABOUR does that answer your question blue.

Mel wrote: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.........

Mel your DEFINATELY not wrong in any shape or form, I have been saying for a long time that they should re-name there party Fcuk you Im alright Jack party that suits them better but Mel the way I look at it people will only take so much and then they SNAP and after been fed huge doses of Tory Ideology and Dogma they will use the only thing left to them and that will be a General Strike.

This part of my post is for the attention of blue you know that Scotland is having a referendum here in Scotland to ask if we want to spilt from the UK, the reason Alec Salmond is waiting until Autumn 2014 to ask that question is because he knows by then Scotland will be sick to the back teeth of the Tory led Gov't cuts and there Ideology and Dogma and out and out NASTINESS that we will vote Yes because at least in Scotland we will not be forced into having a Tory Gov't.

All the focussing on a General Strike, in this country (UK) in the 21st Century is misplaced IMO

Back in 1979, there was no danger of union funds being sequestrated - arrested to repay any damage done to any company by a strike. (The definition of 'Legal Strike' is very narrow and vague, and as usual, the goal posts can be shifted at a brief's whim!

Back in 1979, if you called a strike there was no danger of your house and belongings being arrested and your family being out on the street (This, even if EVERYTHING isdocumented in your wife's name!)

I find it rather amazing that Tory supporters on here, do not state the legislation the Witch rolled out, rather than repeatedly stating as fact a situation which now, could never arise!

By the way, does your Boss realise he/she is paying you to work as opposed to writing all your crap on these boards. I know you will come up with some excuse, for no other reason than you are a Tory, but I'm sure your boss would rather get what he/she's paying for. Or perhaps you are no better than those you continually insult, and want something for nothing

Mel....I will come back to you later, but I am having a very busy day at work so cannot answer your points in full just yet. As for insults, well that's what I get here almost every day but it's water off a ducks back so I wouldn't stress about it if I were you. I'm sure you're tougher than that.

PS.....I am the boss and I said to myself it's ok to post when I have time during the day. Most of my posts are late at night, when I have finished my daily paperwork

Ahh!!!!! that says it all blue------"I AM THE BOSS".
Apart from that, of course "water off a ducks back" is typical of Tories, no caring or feeling for others, just self self self is the norm.

Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline. Prices were rising at an alarming rate, the country kept having financial crisises, it even had to go to the IMF for emergency loans to keep its economy afloat our economy was so bad, it was being run by the IMF (the only country outside of Africa and South America to ever suffer that humiliation) and held to ransom by the unions. There were strikes every other week and as soon as one strike got settled, another one broke out. The strikes led to disruptions in the delivery of goods and services, there were sometimes shortages of food in the stores. At one point, Britain was put on a three-day workweek to save energy and the lights went out. The constant strikes meant that there was no garbage pickup so people had to dump their garbage in the town square, people went without emergency surgery because the doctors and nurses were on strike and even funerals had to be postponed because the gravediggers were also out on strike.
When she left, the UK was the third strongest in the world. Anyone who says things were good before Thatcher became PM was either super-rich already, or looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. I'm not saying Thatcher was perfect, or that everything she did was good, but it is an undeniable historical fact that she turned this country around, and for the better.
And should anyone ask, I returned from Germany last week and will be having a couple of days off.

Ivan

The open letter to "the quiet man" pha!!!! will certainly go straight into the waste paper basket. That will make two baskets in the same office.

The soccer lout supporters sometimes shout----"we shall not be moved"
The IDS (ill deed sod) sings from the same song sheet I am afraid, along with all of his kind including the cruel Lord Fraud, who is planning to put charges on the homes of those who are unemployed and receiving the (reduced) interest payment on mortgage assistance (brought in by Darling)
He intends to recoup the money from the property equity. That is of course if there is any left the way house prices are dropping.

I see on Panarama last night LORD Ashcroft has been found out at last, although no doubt Camercon will come to his aid.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has just announced that the "Welfare Reforms will NOT see a reduction for the Tax Payer in the long term!!"

atv wrote:Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline. Prices were rising at an alarming rate, the country kept having financial crisises, it even had to go to the IMF for emergency loans to keep its economy afloat our economy was so bad, it was being run by the IMF (the only country outside of Africa and South America to ever suffer that humiliation) and held to ransom by the unions. There were strikes every other week and as soon as one strike got settled, another one broke out. The strikes led to disruptions in the delivery of goods and services, there were sometimes shortages of food in the stores. At one point, Britain was put on a three-day workweek to save energy and the lights went out. The constant strikes meant that there was no garbage pickup so people had to dump their garbage in the town square, people went without emergency surgery because the doctors and nurses were on strike and even funerals had to be postponed because the gravediggers were also out on strike.
When she left, the UK was the third strongest in the world. Anyone who says things were good before Thatcher became PM was either super-rich already, or looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. I'm not saying Thatcher was perfect, or that everything she did was good, but it is an undeniable historical fact that she turned this country around, and for the better.
And should anyone ask, I returned from Germany last week and will be having a couple of days off.

When Thatcher was kicked out of office by her own people, her legacy was a massive rich and poor divide with a homeless crisis, over 3 million unemployed, and millions of pensioners in poverty, and we had no industries or industrial bases, and our Utilities had been priviatised so that people could make a few bob on the backs of the poor.

And that's just for starters. Millions of British people sold their souls to this woman, and I wonder today, how many wished they hadnt ?

Guten tag atv

Yes things were bad before the Witch..... However, her doctrine and her so called strengthening of the country was short lived and brought about by mass unemployment, sale of our utilties, North sea oil and forced cheap labour. In addition she brought about our reliance upon invisible earnings, banking for example which replaced the demise of our manufacturing base that she brought to and end. We now suffer high uncontrollable utility/rail prices etc, along with the banking crisis due to her deregulation of the banking sector along with her friend Reagan whom she followed in this respect.

All her measures are irriversible and she was aware of that fact, now we suffer even more as a concequence.

And Good Day to you Mel,
glad to see you back, sorry to here about your furry companion.

As for nationalisation, yes I fully believe that our Utilities should be in the control of the people, and not proffit making shareholders.

But they wont be in the control of the people will they? They will be in control of the unions, who will be demanding more and more pay rises, resulting in the private sector demanding the same, resulting in prices rising, the cost of living increasing, and on and on and on.

I may have said this before and may be wrong, but I thought we had tried the era of strong Trade Unions, it didn't appear to work, eventually resulting in intransigent management up against intransigent Trade Unions, result a huge loss in our manufacturing base, never to be recovered.

Does anyone other than dyed in the wool lefties want to return to those dark days.

atv wrote:

As for nationalisation, yes I fully believe that our Utilities should be in the control of the people, and not proffit making shareholders.

But they wont be in the control of the people will they? They will be in control of the unions, who will be demanding more and more pay rises, resulting in the private sector demanding the same, resulting in prices rising, the cost of living increasing, and on and on and on.

I may have said this before and may be wrong, but I thought we had tried the era of strong Trade Unions, it didn't appear to work, eventually resulting in intransigent management up against intransigent Trade Unions, result a huge loss in our manufacturing base, never to be recovered.

Does anyone other than dyed in the wool lefties want to return to those dark days.

I have always taken an impartial view here.

If our Utilies remain in private companies, how can we make sure that our pensioners can have enough money to pay these bills ?, and not have to make choices between heating and eating ?

QUOTE: Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline

Now beginning to look terminal ......

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline

Now beginning to look terminal ......

After 13 years of Labour in power, what did you expect?

Mel wrote:Ahh!!!!! that says it all blue------"I AM THE BOSS".
Apart from that, of course "water off a ducks back" is typical of Tories, no caring or feeling for others, just self self self is the norm.

Your quite right Mel, But blue could not be anything but a boss the kind that will accept the new YTS scheme for the 6-9 months then fling them back on the scrap heap and that in turn will lower the Unemployment rate until the kick out of there SCIVVY work for nowt pretend training schemes.

"Water of a Ducks Back" just shows how much they do not care about anybody but themselves which leads me too "Self first Self again if there is anything left Myself again".

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

That will not need much imagination bobby either for blue or anybody on this forum.

It's official! Everything is the government's fault.

Except the present government, apparently....

atv, you don't get it do you?


The 1970's situation could not happen again!
The red robbo Derek Hatton arfah scargill hassle could not start up again, never. Laws have been changed.

I see NO sence in labouring on the past!


AND YES the laws have been changed too far, and the little redress employees have in law is being reduced even further and financial assistance removed by the present bunch of filth.

The Beeching Act was deployed under a Tory regime. (Ted HE HE he Heath) Part of the deal was that overhead bridges were taken down/removed/scrapped and permissive foot crossings in their place. This was further reinforced in the privatisation legislation in the 80s by iron drawers and her co-horts.

The logic for this was - that the litigation in the case of ONE accident/incident evrey 5 years would be cheaper than the cost of repairing / maintaining/ painting the bridges in the future! The airline industry works on much the same ghastly principle!
Two girls had to die at Elsingham so that now the "rules" may be changed.
this is the Tory ideal!
Says it all really!

Phil Hornby wrote:It's official! Everything is the government's fault.

Except the present government, apparently....

How very true PH, its up too us on these forums to keep reminding the Tory faithful that there Gov't are just like the rest of the country they are humane beings and are capable of making MISTAKES but unlike the rest of us are incapable of admitting that it is possible near impossible for them to make such a dirty thing like a MISTAKE.

atv wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline

Now beginning to look terminal ......

After 13 years of Labour in power, what did you expect?

Labour werent Labour under Blair and Brown, they were Thatcherite.

But Blair's entry in the History Books will refer only to an illegal war in Iraq, whilst Gordon will stay famous for evading the siren song of the Euro.

oftenwrong wrote:But Blair's entry in the History Books will refer only to an illegal war in Iraq, whilst Gordon will stay famous for evading the siren song of the Euro.

The war in Iraq, illegal or otherwise, was a cross party democractic decision. As it happens, as much as I didnt agree with the slaughter of millions in Iraq, the fact is New Labour under Blair and Brown did more for the poor than the Tories ever did. Its a real shame that the Britrish people are so thick as to give votes to Cameron at the last general election.

Ivanhoe wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:But Blair's entry in the History Books will refer only to an illegal war in Iraq, whilst Gordon will stay famous for evading the siren song of the Euro.

The war in Iraq, illegal or otherwise, was a cross party democractic decision. As it happens, as much as I didnt agree with the slaughter of millions in Iraq, the fact is New Labour under Blair and Brown did more for the poor than the Tories ever did. Its a real shame that the Britrish people are so thick as to give votes to Cameron at the last general election.

Im sorry Ivanhoe I did not take much notice of the Iraq war, but you are right about the Labour Gov't they did a lot for the poor and the low paid its the Labour that brought in the minimum wage and where on the brink of getting the living wage but the UK voted tactically hoping to keep the Tories out but because the Yellow Tories put them into No 10 and I suppose by now they will be regretting it.

There is one thing I will never forgive Nick Clegg for what he did to Gordon Brown he used him as a lever to get more out of Scameron which he did not like one bit.

atv. Thank you for your kind words regarding my sad loss of my big furry boy.

You said "But they wont be in the control of the people will they? They will be in control of the unions."

Not any longer atv, the Witch has seen to that. In any case the sell offs and privatision will never be reversed, again the old bag saw to that too.

The Lords amandments to soften welfare reforms has been overturned by the Coalition. They have used a rare tool known as "financial privilidge" which means only THE House Of Commons can make decisions on bills.

I ask you, for what purpose does The House Of Lords now exist?
A I said many times before the election. The Tories would railroad their evil policies no matter what, come what may if they ever got into power again.

Now we see the cruel. dogmatic, arrogant brutal beast in all its nastiness.

Nobody should be surprised that Tory dogma is being forced through both Houses at the speed of HS2. They don't expect the Coalition to survive much longer.

Just have a look at Clegg's face on TV as he sits alongside the PM, with an expression usually associated with occupants of the Electric Chair.

We keep hearing from Iain Dumkopff Schmidt that it is unfair, for people who don’t work to live better than those who do, and by so doing looks as though he actually cared about the low paid workers. This is the biggest load of bollocks imaginable, he care not a jot for the low paid, if he did instead of constantly making divisive statements, he would be advocating paying the poorest more, this would make work more attractive to some and take many more off benefits. But no This quiet Nazi type person doesn’t want that, what he wants is anything that will cost less, making life easier for those that support his evil party.

All the belly crawling lowlifes have to do, is retrieve the 52 Billion Their mates, Lord Ashcroft, the Defence minister Hammond and not forgetting the Chancellor Gideon to name just three, and how many more in the Tory front benches are they that are squeezing the sick and poor whilst stealing our money and secreting it away in a tax haven. How much would that 52 Billion go towards saving this Country from more unnecessary hardship.

We need to get rid of this foul Coalition by fair means or foul, after all why play by the rules, when they wont.

bobby wrote:We keep hearing from Iain Dumkopff Schmidt that it is unfair, for people who don’t work to live better than those who do, and by so doing looks as though he actually cared about the low paid workers. This is the biggest load of bollocks imaginable, he care not a jot for the low paid, if he did instead of constantly making divisive statements, he would be advocating paying the poorest more, this would make work more attractive to some and take many more off benefits. But no This quiet Nazi type person doesn’t want that, what he wants is anything that will cost less, making life easier for those that support his evil party.

All the belly crawling lowlifes have to do, is retrieve the 52 Billion Their mates, Lord Ashcroft, the Defence minister Hammond and not forgetting the Chancellor Gideon to name just three, and how many more in the Tory front benches are they that are squeezing the sick and poor whilst stealing our money and secreting it away in a tax haven. How much would that 52 Billion go towards saving this Country from more unnecessary hardship.

We need to get rid of this foul Coalition by fair means or foul, after all why play by the rules, when they wont.

I couldnt agree more with what you say bobby. But I wouldnt mind betting you, not literally, that Cameron wins the next general election by a landslide.

Ivanhoe says,
I couldnt agree more with what you say bobby. But I wouldnt mind betting you, not literally, that Cameron wins the next general election by a landslide.


That will be the day i will believe pigs can fly, and if by any fluke of a chance they do win, there will be a lot of flying pigs in the Houses of Parliament.

The Lords amandments to soften welfare reforms has been overturned by the Coalition. They have used a rare tool known as "financial privilidge" which means only THE House Of Commons can make decisions on bills.

I ask you, for what purpose does The House Of Lords now exist?
A I said many times before the election. The Tories would railroad their evil policies no matter what, come what may if they ever got into power again.

Now we see the cruel. dogmatic, arrogant brutal beast in all its nastiness..

Mel....I agree this is shocking!!! Who can trust a government that would overturn a House of Lords decision?
I know Labour would never do it, because that would be hypocrisy...wouldn't it! And I am sure you wouldn't want to think of Labour as a cruel, arrogant, brutal beast???

Tony Blair has urged peers to back the anti-terror bill after MPs overturned a series of House of Lords amendments.
Ministers saw off a bid to put a time limit on the controversial bill which returns to the Lords on Thursday.
They had already agreed to allow judges to oversee all control orders - from house arrest to less serious limits on freedoms such as internet access.
Mr Blair said it would be irresponsible to water down the bill further, and said police and experts backed it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4327993.stm


Well my oh my...what have we here then, surely this cannot be true??!! Have the Hypocrisy party struck again!!!!

atv wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline

Now beginning to look terminal ......

After 13 years of Labour in power, what did you expect?

And what kind of state will this Tory led Gov't leave the country in after only FIVE years, I dread to think if what is happening at the moment Unemployment up to 3 Million and that is set to rise, growth flatlining public and private sectors suffering plus the privatization of the NHS at the moment 49% for the time being that could grow if Landsley gets his way.

Redflag wrote:

atv wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline

Now beginning to look terminal ......

After 13 years of Labour in power, what did you expect?

And what kind of state will this Tory led Gov't leave the country in after only FIVE years, I dread to think if what is happening at the moment Unemployment up to 3 Million and that is set to rise, growth flatlining public and private sectors suffering plus the privatization of the NHS at the moment 49% for the time being that could grow if Landsley gets his way.

Yes, I predict 7 to 10 million unemployed at the end of this Parliament.

Yes, I predict 7 to 10 million unemployed at the end of this Parliament

Yes if the coalition use the dodgy counting system New Labour used when in government...they were the kings of statistical manipulation

blueturando wrote:

Yes, I predict 7 to 10 million unemployed at the end of this Parliament

Yes if the coalition use the dodgy counting system New Labour used when in government...they were the kings of statistical manipulation

Considering your a Tory bluey, that's a good one from you.