Will the cruel Tory welfare reforms save any money?

by sickchip Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:05 am

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.

by Redflag Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:11 pm

The cap on benefits will effect the people on several fronts home food and health, but the hardest hit will be the children whose families live in London and surrounding areas is looking likely to set off a chain of major events that will have lasting effects on the children, too be taken from there homes school and friends, that in turn will effect the health of the entire family the stress and strain and the possibility of becoming homeless and all it encompasses ( Bed an Breakfast or Hostels)as we all know there is not enough cheap council houses for every one.

All this will put a strain on the local councils concerned whose budgets have already been sliced and diced and are not capable of handling any more pressure even if councils put these people in a bed & breakfast the full amount may not be paid for by H.B they will have too use some the money given for food in order too have a roof over there heads but will need one or two months rental for a deposit on a flat in the private sector and some private landlords will not entertain if the bread winner is not in employment.

On health the children could become withdrawn and there schooling could suffer leading to failing in education causing them problems in the future with there chances in work and career which in turn could lead them being a burden on the state in the future this is not tax money been well spent its just storing up problems for some later date or another Gov't, Tories claim they are cleaning up the mess left by Labour party but who is going to clean up the mess that they leave behind.

So what is this Gov't going too do start building "WORK HOUSES" to accommodate these homeless people or does it expect people to move where ever this Gov't can palm people off to,any builders out there it may be worth while to keep your ear to the ground for new building contracts to resurrect the old Work Houses.

by blueturando Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:16 pm

Can I ask Redflag.....What do you think these Landlords are going to do with their properties if the housing benefit is cut? Many are over charging because they know the government will pay...so what happens when the government says, No more!!! Private renters will not pay these prices, so are they going to kick out residents who claim housing support only to then have a multitude of emply properties?

by Ivanhoe Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:26 pm

blueturando wrote:The two do not go hand in hand Ivanhoe....

Yes the government should seriously invest in a manufacturing base as long as it's not hijacked by militant unions and then made unprofitable again.

Please give me an explanation of what is 'Evil' about the proposed welfare cuts

If you have to be told, you will never understand.

And Unions still have their place when this country is ruled by rabid right wing Tory's.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:32 pm

"....If rents were controlled, especially in large cities such as London, the bill for benefits would fall."

Rents in Britain were controlled from the final years of WW2 onwards. A tenancy agreement meant accommodation for as long as you wanted to stay there, and only a Rent Tribunal could alter the terms.

With inflation the value of statutory rents became negligible, and only Councils offered rented houses to newcomers. Landlords refused to repair property and much of the housing stock became uninhabitable. Rent control only works if the supply matches demand.

by astra Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:37 pm

What do you think these Landlords are going to do with their properties if the housing benefit is cut? Many are over charging because they know the government will pay...

Probably be left only to sell the properties to developers.

you have to admit that most of these places are not celubrious in themselves or are in the most dapper area of town!

by **Ivan** Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:41 pm

The way to 'make work pay' is to increase the minimum wage and take anyone being paid it out of Income Tax, not to reduce benefits. Another thing that would help is if the government encouraged the creation of new jobs for people to take, instead of making 710,000 public sector workers redundant. The current policies aren't working now, just as they didn't work in the 1930s.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:42 pm

blueturando wrote:
What Britain needs is the national renewal of a universial cheap to rent social housing programme Together with an industry and manufacturing base, with a decent minimum wage.

Now I agree with that 100%

Then there is the social aspect. Who is going to become a school cleaner or dinner lady in inner city schools if they can't afford to live within a 20 or 30 mile radius?

Leaving out London, where else in the country would this apply?

Living in your island fastness you can no doubt be forgiven for ignorance of the cost of housing on the mainland. Anywhere "Rural" is occupied by the prosperous middle class who commute to Town, chasing up property values and rents in the countryside. School dinner-ladies can't afford to live there, nor can Firemen, roadmenders or dustmen. Rents of family accommodation in somewhere like Oxford make Chelsea look quite reasonable.

by Redflag Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:54 pm

blueturando wrote:Can I ask Redflag.....What do you think these Landlords are going to do with their properties if the housing benefit is cut? Many are over charging because they know the government will pay...so what happens when the government says, No more!!! Private renters will not pay these prices, so are they going to kick out residents who claim housing support only to then have a multitude of emply properties?

I guess your right Blue its about time the Gov't done something about the private landlords I lived in London for 4 years and half my weekly wage was spent on rent and the other half went on feeding a meter or keep my self warm in regard to empty flats squatters will move in (I hope) do you think it will then bring there high rents down?

by Ivanhoe Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:33 pm

Ivan wrote:The way to 'make work pay' is to increase the minimum wage and take anyone being paid it out of Income Tax, not to reduce benefits. Another thing that would help is if the government encouraged the creation of new jobs for people to take, instead of making 710,000 public sector workers redundant. The current policies aren't working now, just as they didn't work in the 1930s.

They arent meant to work. The Tory ideoligy is to remove the role of the state in favour of privatisation and charities. In short creating over 3 million unemployed again.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:52 pm

"If it isn't hurting, it isn't working!"
Chancellor Norman Lamont

"Unemployment is a price worth paying!"
same caring Tory Chancellor

by Ivanhoe Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:12 pm

oftenwrong wrote:"If it isn't hurting, it isn't working!"
Chancellor Norman Lamont

"Unemployment is a price worth paying!"
same caring Tory Chancellor

Again. Precisely.

by blueturando Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:50 pm

Firstly I didn't realise Norman Lamont was still chancellor...I must have missed 25 years or so there.

Secondly OW, I am fully aware of UK prices. Even though I live in Jersey our Tv, press and any other way you or I would have knowledge of this is the same. All my family live in Cambridge, with my brother and sister having to move out to the outlying villages because the city property prices are sky high.

If you have to be told, you will never understand.
And Unions still have their place when this country is ruled by rabid right wing Tory's..

Ivanhoe....you are very quick to come out with ill conceived statements, but then reluctant to explain what they mean or what your evidence is for this. Unfortunately this just makes me feel you don't know what you are talking about or just following the crowd. Try to come up with viable solutions, or point out in detail where the coalition is wrong in your eyes, then I may understand better where youre coming from. If I'm wrong then I apologise, but thats how I feel.

They arent meant to work. The Tory ideoligy is to remove the role of the state in favour of privatisation and charities. In short creating over 3 million unemployed again..

Once again Ivanhoe....What?? and yes you will have to back up your words sometime

Redflag hits the nail on the head...Maybe its time for government to set to rents for all private landlords wishing to receive housing benefits from their tennents, with a yearly inspection to make sure those properties are in an acceptable state and fit for purpose. If not then rent will be deducted to carry out repairs. I don't know about you, but it does p*ss me off that developers with sometimes 20/30 or more properties are in effect scamming the tax payer for a small fortune and it's time for action

by blueturando Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:58 pm

PS....We have the same issues here with prices.....Crazy prices....EG:

Large 2 bedroom house UNFURNISHED in St. Helier with garden, garage and parking overlooking the whole of St. Aubins Bay ! Available immediately. Highly Recommended. £1500 Per Month

Immaculate 3 bedroom house
£449000
FIRST TIME BUYERS ONLY. Three bedroom first time buyers house, situated mid-terrace offering a safe enclosed garden with garage plus extra parking. Good sized bedrooms and an eat in kitchen. Located in a rural position, close to the sea, schools and town. This great family home is only about 4 years old and offers fantastic living accommodation. Property is with Thompson Estates and Gaudins.

by sickchip Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:32 am

If they won't increase minimum wage to a living wage do the following:

Based on a full time minimum wage -

37.5hrs x £6.03 = £226.125pw gross and approx £190 net.

The government state £67.50 (JSA) is what an adult needs to live on. They also say work should pay - so it is reasonable to expect £100pw in ones pocket given the above full time minimum wage.

Therefore cap all rents for accomadation with one or two bedrooms at £90pw, three bedrooms £140pw, and four bedrooms at £180pw.

This would make the minimum wage closer to a living wage and reduce the housing benefit bill. Obviously this is based on two incomes for larger properties.

....and please - don't start crying for the landlords.

by Redflag Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:28 am

Ivan wrote:The Tories have public support for their benefits cap because £26,000 a year sounds like a hell of a lot of money. What has to be remembered is that in parts of London, the rent for a flat with two bedrooms can be as much as £1,400 per month, which is nearly £17,000 a year.

The usual Tory response to that is the people on benefits should move to a cheaper area. But then if they have a low-paid job in one of those more expensive areas, they can hardly be expected to pay fares (recently raised again by Boris Johnson) travelling from some distance away, just to do poorly remunerated work.

So if you cap benefits and drive people away (and disrupt their children's education in the process), there will be jobs which nobody can do because they can't afford to live nearby, and a form of apartheid will be created, with rich and poor kept well apart, reminiscent of what used to go on in South Africa.

If this foul government had a shred of decency, it would introduce rent capping rather than benefit capping, and Duncan Smith might have a little more credibility if the hypocrite hadn't claimed £94,000 in expenses.

Hi Ivan can you please explain something for me as I can not fathom it out, 1) according to Scameron to get £26,000 on benefits its equivalent to some one in work earning £35,000 and if you earn £35,000 you also get family allowance but if your getting your benefit capped you can not get family allowance so really there not getting £26,000

2) if you earn £44,000 you do not get family allowance but if man and wife work each earning £40,000 total £80,000 you can get family allowance, COCK-EYED thinking or it looks to me not thinking at all or IMHO if you don't earn oodles of money Scameron is not interested in you, And to add insult to injury quite a lot of these people getting there benefit capped will have been made unemployed was due to Scameron CUTS

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:08 am

".... please - don't start crying for the landlords. "

Can anyone remember who it was that gave landlords the upper hand over rents? By removing most Council-rented property from the market?

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:24 am

oftenwrong wrote:".... please - don't start crying for the landlords. "

Can anyone remember who it was that gave landlords the upper hand over rents? By removing most Council-rented property from the market?

Margaret Thatcher stopped council house building in this country during her "right to buy". Hence Britain's housing crisis today. Britain has had no social policy in this country for roughly 30 years. The high rent private sector s people's only option. And the means test for housing benefit to help pay the exortionare rents required by landlaords, is a means test trap.

by sickchip Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:29 am

Peers in the lords today are discussing the proposed abolition of the 'social fund'. The social fund provides discretionary emergency loans to people in crisis, unexpected emergency needs, etc. It is a last resort for people in such a situation.

This is plainly a proposal stemming from tory ideology, and is rooted in a desire to punish the poorest in society. It won't save money - these crisis loans are paid back by the people who receive them.

It might indeed, in some cases, push people into the teeth of loan sharks discussed elsewhere on these boards. I can see the queues at food banks increasing at the very least......mothers and children first!!?

Let's hope the Lords have the sense to entirely dismiss this abhorrent, and cruel, proposal.

by Redflag Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:53 am

sickchip wrote:If they won't increase minimum wage to a living wage do the following:

Based on a full time minimum wage -

37.5hrs x £6.03 = £226.125pw gross and approx £190 net.

The government state £67.50 (JSA) is what an adult needs to live on. They also say work should pay - so it is reasonable to expect £100pw in ones pocket given the above full time minimum wage.

Therefore cap all rents for accomadation with one or two bedrooms at £90pw, three bedrooms £140pw, and four bedrooms at £180pw.

This would make the minimum wage closer to a living wage and reduce the housing benefit bill. Obviously this is based on two incomes for larger properties.

....and please - don't start crying for the landlords.

Sorry Sickchip this is TOO sensible to be taken up by this SORRY EXCUSE for a Gov't, Although I do agree it would be the best way to go but do not hold your BREATH.

by Redflag Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:58 am

sickchip wrote:Peers in the lords today are discussing the proposed abolition of the 'social fund'. The social fund provides discretionary emergency loans to people in crisis, unexpected emergency needs, etc. It is a last resort for people in such a situation.

This is plainly a proposal stemming from tory ideology, and is rooted in a desire to punish the poorest in society. It won't save money - these crisis loans are paid back by the people who receive them.

It might indeed, in some cases, push people into the teeth of loan sharks discussed elsewhere on these boards. I can see the queues at food banks increasing at the very least......mothers and children first!!?

Let's hope the Lords have the sense to entirely dismiss this abhorrent, and cruel, proposal.

I have said in an earlier post this Gov't is not interested in you unless you earn OODLES of money IMHO that is because you might just pour some of it into Tory party FUNDS, I will say I AM BITTER but if I thought they where getting a smell of my DUMP I would shut the toilet door.

by sickchip Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:11 am

Redflag wrote:
sickchip wrote:If they won't increase minimum wage to a living wage do the following:

Based on a full time minimum wage -

37.5hrs x £6.03 = £226.125pw gross and approx £190 net.

The government state £67.50 (JSA) is what an adult needs to live on. They also say work should pay - so it is reasonable to expect £100pw in ones pocket given the above full time minimum wage.

Therefore cap all rents for accomadation with one or two bedrooms at £90pw, three bedrooms £140pw, and four bedrooms at £180pw.

This would make the minimum wage closer to a living wage and reduce the housing benefit bill. Obviously this is based on two incomes for larger properties.

....and please - don't start crying for the landlords.

Sorry Sickchip this is TOO sensible to be taken up by this SORRY EXCUSE for a Gov't, Although I do agree it would be the best way to go but do not hold your BREATH.

I was hoping to be picked up on this......as I realise it's not really a feasible solution. I posted it more to demonstrate how ridiculously unbalanced/off kilter our system has been allowed to become.

by sickchip Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:14 am

The other point regarding the proposed abolition of the 'social fund' is - why on earth hasn't this been in the news?

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:21 am

sickchip wrote:
Redflag wrote:
sickchip wrote:If they won't increase minimum wage to a living wage do the following:

Based on a full time minimum wage -

37.5hrs x £6.03 = £226.125pw gross and approx £190 net.

The government state £67.50 (JSA) is what an adult needs to live on. They also say work should pay - so it is reasonable to expect £100pw in ones pocket given the above full time minimum wage.

Therefore cap all rents for accomadation with one or two bedrooms at £90pw, three bedrooms £140pw, and four bedrooms at £180pw.

This would make the minimum wage closer to a living wage and reduce the housing benefit bill. Obviously this is based on two incomes for larger properties.

....and please - don't start crying for the landlords.

Sorry Sickchip this is TOO sensible to be taken up by this SORRY EXCUSE for a Gov't, Although I do agree it would be the best way to go but do not hold your BREATH.

I was hoping to be picked up on this......as I realise it's not really a feasible solution. I posted it more to demonstrate how ridiculously unbalanced/off kilter our system has been allowed to become.

Welfare reform under the right wing has never been about saving money. It is about ideoligy. The right wing have an ideoligical hatred of the welfare State. But welfare reform has to be seen as saving tax payers money via the media and right wing policians because this suits the penny pinching mind sets of what the media believe the middle classses want, ie low income tax.

Thatcher started this, and now the coalition are finishing it. 30 odd years later.

by sickchip Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:24 am

It is not poorly paid workers, or the unemployed, who have allowed house prices to escalate to a point where owning a home is now beyond the reach of many. If the average house price had been allowed to remain at three times the average wage we would not have this problem now; but ridiculous house price inflation was actively encouraged by government, banks, and homeowners. That is why we now have people having to claim large amounts in housing benefit....working people too. If affordable social housing was supplied instead of throwing money away on vanity projects like the dome, olympics, high speed rail, royal yachts, etc than this might also alleviate the problem......I guess people aren't government priority!

All the daily mail types whining about benefit spongers etc are probably the same people who a few years ago could be heard gloating 'We paid £100,000 for the house two years ago and have just sold it for £200,000'. How ironic that it is their fault the nation's housing benefit bill is so large.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:54 pm

Will the cruel Tory welfare reforms save any money?

Only by accident, not by design.
The intention is to show hoi polloi like us just who is in charge around here.

by Redflag Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:42 pm

Ivan wrote:The Tories have public support for their benefits cap because £26,000 a year sounds like a hell of a lot of money. What has to be remembered is that in parts of London, the rent for a flat with two bedrooms can be as much as £1,400 per month, which is nearly £17,000 a year.

The usual Tory response to that is the people on benefits should move to a cheaper area. But then if they have a low-paid job in one of those more expensive areas, they can hardly be expected to pay fares (recently raised again by Boris Johnson) travelling from some distance away, just to do poorly remunerated work.

So if you cap benefits and drive people away (and disrupt their children's education in the process), there will be jobs which nobody can do because they can't afford to live nearby, and a form of apartheid will be created, with rich and poor kept well apart, reminiscent of what used to go on in South Africa.

If this foul government had a shred of decency, it would introduce rent capping rather than benefit capping, and Duncan Smith might have a little more credibility if the hypocrite hadn't claimed £94,000 in expenses.

I agree 100% Ivan IF is the correct word for decency and it goes to prove they have not go a SHRED in fact they do not have a MINUTE amount of decency in there body and what you have suggested Ivan would be better and fairer if the private landlords where targeted that way some of the people may not have too loose there homes I know not all but some and surely that is a better Idea.

by astra Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:32 pm

The Tories have public support for their benefits cap because £26,000

I think in the support comes from the media reports on how much immigrants are getting at our expence.

The problem existed in 1978, I agree with that, but Labour only exaserbated the problem by signing the Lisbon Treaty (a Treasonous act) and did nothing to correct their creation.

The Torys are going about this in the usual way, hit EVERYBODY in the department, in the hope you get the one who is pissing in the custard.

Even in business, the correctional excercises are NEVER aimed at only the malignant operator.

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:50 pm

astra wrote:
The Tories have public support for their benefits cap because £26,000

I think in the support comes from the media reports on how much immigrants are getting at our expence.

The problem existed in 1978, I agree with that, but Labour only exaserbated the problem by signing the Lisbon Treaty (a Treasonous act) and did nothing to correct their creation.

The Torys are going about this in the usual way, hit EVERYBODY in the department, in the hope you get the one who is pissing in the custard.

Even in business, the correctional excercises are NEVER aimed at only the malignant operator.

Non EU immigrants CANNOT claim benefits until they have been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain. A non EU immigrant must have been legally resident in the UK for five years before they can claim ILR or for two years if they married a UK national.

Benefits are classed as follows:

income-based jobseeker's allowance;
income support;
child tax credit;
working tax credit;
a social fund payment;
child benefit;
housing benefit;
council tax benefit;
state pension credit;
attendance allowance;
severe disablement allowance;
carer's allowance;
disability living allowance;
an allocation of local authority housing; and
local authority homelessness assistance.

They can however claim the following as to be eligible you must have paid NI contributions. These are not classed as "public funds".

contribution-based jobseeker's allowance;
incapacity benefit;
retirement pension;
widow's benefit and bereavement benefit;
guardian's allowance;
statutory maternity pay; and
maternity allowance.

EU immigrants are allowed to claim certain reciprocal benefits if they would be entitled to them in their own country. This applies to Brits living abroad for example the 500,000 UK nationals currently living in Spain are also entitled to claim benefits through the Spanish system.

Asylum seekers are treated differently and are far fewer in number than rags like the Mail and the Sun would lead you to believe. For instance between July and September 2009, of the 7,240 asylum decisions made, 79% were refused, 9% were granted Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave (temporary permission to stay) and only 12% were granted asylum. The majority of cases are decided within 30 days.

Until asylum is granted, they cannot work so can apply for financial support if they are destitute. The level of support is currently as follows:

Married couple (or in a civil partnership): £69.57
Lone parent aged 18 or over: £42.16
Single person aged 18 or over: £35.13
Single person over 16, but under 18 £38.18
Person aged under 16: £50.81

Pregnant women and women with children aged under three get additional help.

They can also be housed, the Home Office uses private landlords and never in London or the South East, so they are not taking accommodation from UK citizens.

Non EU immigrants cannot bring in "shiploads of dependents". Unlike many countries for example the USA, the UK only allows direct relations to join their family in the UK. i.e. minor children, spouses, or elderly parents who are totally financially reliant on their child and have no other children in their home country to care for them . They must be able to prove that they can support them financially and provide adequate accommodation.

Between July and September 2009, 14% of immigrants were returning Brits, 85,000 of them. Nearly 16 times the number of asylum seekers making claims during the same period.

So talking all this into account, of the 610,245 immigrants to the UK during the July to September 2009 period, 371,000 were students who can apply for a NI number and work part time legally, but cannot claim benefits.

That leaves 239,245 potential benefits claimants. Already we've disproved the Daily Mail's "facts".

Of these 239,245, 112,000 were work permit holders and their dependents, all of who can work, apply for a NI No but who again cannot claim benefits.

That leaves 127,245. Of these 85,000 were UK residents, some of whom may or may not be perfectly entitled to claim benefits. Others due to the length of time spent outside the UK, will not be entitled to claim certain benefits. That leaves us with 42,245.

29,085 of these were from eastern European countries that require worker registration. As stated above, some of these are entitled under reciprocal EU arrangements to certain benefits.

Of the remaining 13,160, 5,055 were asylum seekers. The remainder would be Youth Mobility, Ancestry visa entrants and such, none of whom can claim benefits.

Hope that clears up some of the misinformation.

Oh and you cannot get a NI No if you are not legally in the UK.

by astra Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:26 pm

If your Nigerian relatives (sayin' yer have any) stay in France or Spain for 18 months, it gives them a shortcut to get here!

You sayin' that is an OK situation?

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:37 pm

astra wrote:If your Nigerian relatives (sayin' yer have any) stay in France or Spain for 18 months, it gives them a shortcut to get here!

You sayin' that is an OK situation?

I think you are obsessed with a myth, that Britain is a land of milk and honey for Eastern Europeam immigrants. And I think this myth derives from our past Empire.

Just because I am British through and through, I dont think I was born in the best country in the world. Far from it.

by astra Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:00 pm

I think you are obsessed

Ain't obsessed Sirrah

Hissed off at the way this country is going when steered by the Labour Left! No the Bories aint doing anything about it either! Theresa May's Dept, heard anything from her/them lately??

And NO I do NOT think this is the land of milk and honey, BUT Whatever it is I paid every week so the numpties had cash to pay where they got us now!

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:05 pm

astra wrote:
I think you are obsessed

Ain't obsessed Sirrah

Hissed off at the way this country is going when steered by the Labour Left! No the Bories aint doing anything about it either! Theresa May's Dept, heard anything from her/them lately??

And NO I do NOT think this is the land of milk and honey, BUT Whatever it is I paid every week so the numpties had cash to pay where they got us now!

The "Labour left", have'nt run Britain since the 70's, so you are wrong there as well.

by Redflag Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:27 pm

blueturando wrote:In my opinion the Coalition needs to make a 2 sided attack...

1. Make the welfare system fairer (have expalined why) and also deal with people abusing the system. Increase the national minimum wage and take more lower earners out of the tax band to encourage more people to take the jobs being snapped up by eastern europeans ect.

2. Set up an independant body to investigate tax evasion by big business, with harsh and robust penalties for those who are not paying their pay share.

Yes I am Tory and yes I live on a tax haven, but I do not like big business to avoid paying tax anymore than you do. Believe it or not, the same thing goes on here and now we have to pay 5% VAT....Gutted!!!

Thanks Blue for your honesty I know some people do abuse the welfare system but they are in very small numbers, Do not hold your breath if your expecting the Tory led Gov't to make things fairer NO CHANCE they hate the normal working man all they are interested in is people that have got an Inheritance behind them.

by astra Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:30 pm

Blair #1 and Brown #2 dessimated the Labour movement for ther own purposes - #1 Property aquisition #2 To maintain an estate in Cape Cod!

The policies and decisions they took were always to the Labour "Left or Labour "Right"
Never did they chose the Labour middle road

because of this they lost me, just as decisively as the Torys did in the early 80's

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:48 pm

astra wrote:Blair #1 and Brown #2 dessimated the Labour movement for ther own purposes - #1 Property aquisition #2 To maintain an estate in Cape Cod!

The policies and decisions they took were always to the Labour "Left or Labour "Right"
Never did they chose the Labour middle road

because of this they lost me, just as decisively as the Torys did in the early 80's

Years ago on the world service, I heard an interesting discussion about how Thatcher had spoiled it for the once decent one nation left of centre Conservative party, and how Blair had spoilt it for the traditional left wing Labour party.

Sums it up really.

by astra Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:59 pm

Once "They" get into Westminster, the wishes, desires and aspirations of their constuants may as well tumble in the wind like dead leaves or discarded litter!

I would like to see a government that acts for the good of the country - something like the French Government, even the US government - only like ours, the US government is pandering to the wishes, demands and threats of the few!

by Ivanhoe Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:38 pm

astra wrote:Once "They" get into Westminster, the wishes, desires and aspirations of their constuants may as well tumble in the wind like dead leaves or discarded litter!

I would like to see a government that acts for the good of the country - something like the French Government, even the US government - only like ours, the US government is pandering to the wishes, demands and threats of the few!

And I would like a bit of guts in the British people, similar to that of the Greeks, the Germans, the French, when it comes to standing up against their Government's.

by astra Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:41 pm

Only thing is, the minute you go out on the street and say BOOOOO! you are nabbed by the polis and the judiciarry have a feed fest.

In the countrys you mention, all turn a blind eye till damage is done.

by bobby Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:01 pm

Ivanhoe said.
"And I would like a bit of guts in the British people, similar to that of the Greeks, the Germans, the French, when it comes to standing up against their Government's."

And The Greek, German and French filth (police) openly carry firearms, and are known to use them.

by sickchip Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:02 pm

astra wrote:Only thing is, the minute you go out on the street and say BOOOOO! you are nabbed by the polis and the judiciarry have a feed fest.

Oppress - To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:37 pm

Civil commotion will never receive any support from Britain's Press. Protest of any kind is included in their Crime reporting.

Theresa May has instructed that no TENTS are to be allowed onto the Olympic site.

by Sponsored content