Cameron: "At a time when people accept a pay freeze"!

There are links in this article that you can view at http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/cameron-at-a-time-when-people-accept-a-pay-freeze/


David Cameron said something today in Prime Minister’s Questions that, even by his ‘high’ standards, was mindblowingly disingenuous.

Trying to ridicule and avoid Ed Miliband’s (perfectly true) accusation that ordinary people will be worse off than ever under this government since George Osborne’s Autumn Statement, and that Osborne’s attempt to demonise people with closed curtains ignores the fact that most benefit claimants are working, and those closed curtains are probably because they were working nights, Cameron said this:

At a time when people accept a pay freeze, we should not be massively increasing benefits

This is deliberately misleading on so many levels it’s untrue. Increasing benefits in line with inflation is not ‘massively increasing’, but simply maintaining benefits – which are anything but lavish – in real terms.

Capping benefit rises at 1%, as Osborne has done, is a real-terms cut, not any kind of increase. And remember, 60% of people receiving benefits are working people.

But the most staggeringly misleading part of the statement is the idea that people ‘accepted’ a pay freeze. The public sector pay-freeze was not ‘accepted’ by public sector workers – it was imposed by a government that left them with no choice and ignored their protests, even making plans to restrict union challenges to the cuts. Unions were livid about the freeze and did not ‘accept’ them by any stretch of the imagination, as even the right-wing Daily Telegraph acknowledged. Similarly, most private sector pay-freezes will not have been accepted by workers, but imposed by company boards.

It seems impossible, but somehow every time Cameron opens his mouth it becomes clearer and clearer that he’s prepared to spout any lie, disinformation or hypocrisy for the sake of a soundbite or if it will help him avoid actually answering a question.

skwalker1964 wrote:There are links in this article that you can view at http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/cameron-at-a-time-when-people-accept-a-pay-freeze/


David Cameron said something today in Prime Minister’s Questions that, even by his ‘high’ standards, was mindblowingly disingenuous.

Trying to ridicule and avoid Ed Miliband’s (perfectly true) accusation that ordinary people will be worse off than ever under this government since George Osborne’s Autumn Statement, and that Osborne’s attempt to demonise people with closed curtains ignores the fact that most benefit claimants are working, and those closed curtains are probably because they were working nights, Cameron said this:

At a time when people accept a pay freeze, we should not be massively increasing benefits

This is deliberately misleading on so many levels it’s untrue. Increasing benefits in line with inflation is not ‘massively increasing’, but simply maintaining benefits – which are anything but lavish – in real terms.

Capping benefit rises at 1%, as Osborne has done, is a real-terms cut, not any kind of increase. And remember, 60% of people receiving benefits are working people.

But the most staggeringly misleading part of the statement is the idea that people ‘accepted’ a pay freeze. The public sector pay-freeze was not ‘accepted’ by public sector workers – it was imposed by a government that left them with no choice and ignored their protests, even making plans to restrict union challenges to the cuts. Unions were livid about the freeze and did not ‘accept’ them by any stretch of the imagination, as even the right-wing Daily Telegraph acknowledged. Similarly, most private sector pay-freezes will not have been accepted by workers, but imposed by company boards.

It seems impossible, but somehow every time Cameron opens his mouth it becomes clearer and clearer that he’s prepared to spout any lie, disinformation or hypocrisy for the sake of a soundbite or if it will help him avoid actually answering a question.

The more this goes on the more I think we need a general strike and out until Scam..er..on calls a general election skywalker, I know the Unions do not want this but this gov't will not listen to anything else maybe this would force there hand, by April next year when all the cuts come into force then and only then will the people of the UK wake up and smell the coffee.

Couldn't agree more!

skwalker1964 wrote:Couldn't agree more!

Thank God somebody else agrees with me, I have suggested this before and have been shot down in flames for even thinking this way.

Capping benefit rises at 1%, as Osborne has done, is a real-terms cut, not any kind of increase. And remember, 60% of people receiving benefits are working people

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news Skywalker and Redflag, but the welfare system has gotten out of control. I know you will not agree with this and think more and more money can be materialise out of thin air and lavished on benefits......Well it can't and it has to be controlled.

the welfare system has gotten out of control

No it hasn't. Benefit expenditure accounted for 11% of the UK’S GDP when the Tories were booted out in 1997. That fell to 9% under Labour before the recession which arose from the global credit crunch. By 2009-10, the figure was back up to 11%, just where it was after eighteen years of Tory rule.
http://fullfact.org/files/2011/03/Welfare_Reform_Bill_2R_Briefing.pdf

Housing benefit is out of control, not because of wicked claimants but because of the rents which greedy landlords charge. The best thing any government could do to reduce the welfare bill would be to bring back rent controls. But that's not something the Tories would ever do, it might upset their rich friends and backers.

Disregarding the "Party Political" aspect of Housing Policy, the shortage of suitable dwellings is the primary problem and only a sustained building programme would alleviate that problem.

We had Rent Control, following WW2, the effect of which was to eliminate many private landlords from the scene because the profit element was not present. The few remaining spent little money on repairing properties which eventually became unsuitable for habitation.

Prior to the creation of "Assured shorthold" introduced by the Housing Act 1988, with important changes made by the Housing Act 1996, the only other source of accommodation was Local Authority housing. Waiting lists were as long then as they are now, but now most of that housing stock is owner-occupied.

Re-introduction of Rent Control legislation would again remove private landlords from the scene, with the unintended consequence of depressing house prices as a flood of property appears on the market. Few homeless people would be housed by that process.

A concerted Public and private Newbuild for rent programme is the only practical solution.

Ivan wrote:

the welfare system has gotten out of control

No it hasn't. Benefit expenditure accounted for 11% of the UK’S GDP when the Tories were booted out in 1997. That fell to 9% under Labour before the recession which arose from the global credit crunch. By 2009-10, the figure was back up to 11%, just where it was after eighteen years of Tory rule.
http://fullfact.org/files/2011/03/Welfare_Reform_Bill_2R_Briefing.pdf

Housing benefit is out of control, not because of wicked claimants but because of the rents which greedy landlords charge. The best thing any government could do to reduce the welfare bill would be to bring back rent controls. But that's not something the Tories would ever do, it might upset their rich friends and backers.

You're right, Ivan, but there's more. The other reason housing benefit is out of control is because the government doesn't want to follow through on Cameron's pre-election statement that the living wage is 'an idea whose time has come'. If people were paid a living wage, far fewer would need housing benefit.

blueturando wrote:

Capping benefit rises at 1%, as Osborne has done, is a real-terms cut, not any kind of increase. And remember, 60% of people receiving benefits are working people

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news Skywalker and Redflag, but the welfare system has gotten out of control. I know you will not agree with this and think more and more money can be materialise out of thin air and lavished on benefits......Well it can't and it has to be controlled.

You SELFISH Backstud, you are just as bad as that shower of dick heads that calls itself the gov't of the UK. Maybe if they did something USEFUL about the SHYTEY wages that the private sector pay, but all they can do is make it easier for them to cut wages along with their tax bill. Do you know how much you get on on J.S.A., it's £70.00 per week? With rising food prices, gas and electric how in GODS name are people supposed to live on that? There are not enough jobs to go around with 2.51 unemployed at this time even with the Tories giggery pokery with the unemployment figures (yes I do not believe a word they say because they are known LIARS).

The only thing that needs controlled (strike that), they need putting down, or maybe do what the French people did in the 17th century CHOP, I used to think you were the one decent Tory voter, but was I wrong very wrong you're no different from those backstuds that you vote for, the Tories. So to be a Tory MP or voter you HAVE to be a BACKSTUD to qualify.

the welfare system has gotten out of control

According to the DWP's own figures, the majority of all welfare spending is on pensioners - 53% - with out of work benefits accounting for less than a quarter of the welfare budget.

On average, between 2000 and 2010, welfare spending grew annually, in real terms, by 1.75% - compared to 5.5% in the 1950s and 1960s, and 3% in the 1980s (under Margaret Thatcher).

Benefit spending as a share of GDP fell during the first 11 years of the last Labour government; it only began to rise in 2008, after the financial crash, as hundreds of thousands of Britons found themselves out of work through no fault of their own.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/welfare-budget-10-things-they-dont-tell-you_b_2314578.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Ivan said in answer to Blueturando: Housing benefit is out of control, not because of wicked claimants but because of the rents which greedy landlords charge.

What I wonder is, just how many of these greedy Landlords are your average Labour suporter, and how many are your typical Tory, including the present Government members.

blueturando wrote:

Capping benefit rises at 1%, as Osborne has done, is a real-terms cut, not any kind of increase. And remember, 60% of people receiving benefits are working people

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news Skywalker and Redflag, but the welfare system has gotten out of control. I know you will not agree with this and think more and more money can be materialise out of thin air and lavished on benefits......Well it can't and it has to be controlled.

But it can be found for EXORBITANT MPs expenses, or to waste it on top down reorganization of the NHS that cost £3 Billion where did Scam..er..on find that, the truth is he even wants rid of the minimum wage that is what he is working towards. If he does not do something DECENT for the normal working man/women he and his cohorts Clegg included are going going to get one ALMIGHTY shock from the UK public.

bobby wrote:Ivan said in answer to Blueturando: Housing benefit is out of control, not because of wicked claimants but because of the rents which greedy landlords charge.

What I wonder is, just how many of these greedy Landlords are your average Labour suporter, and how many are your typical Tory, including the present Government members.

Bobby there are quite a few Tory MPs that have 3/4 houses that they are renting out to other ~Tory MPs and us MUGGINS taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.

The American multi-billionaire, Warren Buffet, was on a BBC radio programme during Christmas week that was being guest-edited by Mrs. Melinda (Bill) Gates, and dealing with the topic of Charity Giving, which is generally acknowledged to be the only alternative to State Welfare.

Revisiting the old, old question for any rich man, "How much is ENOUGH?" Mr Buffet commented that any billionaire could give away half their money without noticing it, as they would still have had half-a-billion to live on.

How far down the ladder of personal wealth does the same argument extend?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9781000/9781009.stm

blueturando wrote:

Capping benefit rises at 1%, as Osborne has done, is a real-terms cut, not any kind of increase. And remember, 60% of people receiving benefits are working people

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news Skywalker and Redflag, but the welfare system has gotten out of control. I know you will not agree with this and think more and more money can be materialise out of thin air and lavished on benefits......Well it can't and it has to be controlled.

So because the welfare state has got out of hand those getting benefit that are working have to pay the price so that the low paid have to pay for the GREED of the B(W)ankers INFAIR just like the bloody Tories dick heads every last man and jack ass of them.

The idea that welfare 'got out of control' or otherwise became unaffordable is just another coalition (primarily Tory) myth:

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/the-lie-of-unaffordability-the-foundations-of-the-welfare-state-and-the-real-structural-problems/

See also Ivan's excellent post just above.

skwalker1964 wrote:The idea that welfare 'got out of control' or otherwise became unaffordable is just another coalition (primarily Tory) myth:

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/the-lie-of-unaffordability-the-foundations-of-the-welfare-state-and-the-real-structural-problems/

See also Ivan's excellent post just above.

Its the Tory Ideology and the Tory MANTRA shywalker, nothing more and nothing less when they take us back to Charles Dickens book Oliver Twist then and only then will the Tories be happy as "PIGS in SHYTE". It has been predicted that next year will be the year of "RIOTS & STRIKES" right across the UK something I have been expecting for a long time.

Steve, once again a great article.

If any government wants to help those that aspire for a better life surely rather than raise welfare payments (only meant to be a safety net rather than a keep net) then the correct thing to do is raise the level of personal allowance so the lower paid keep more of their money. The coalition has done this. Remember Brown took away the 10p tax for low earners? It makes me worry about the obsession with the Tories considering Labour have been proven to help the high earners firstly and then not bothered with the low paid, simply concentrated on the unemployed regardless. Not a policy for economic growth whatever your politics.

Raising personal allowances only works up to the point where one stops paying tax due to being on a wage low enough to except them.......

Of course the current and proposed allowance will still mean that someone working full time (40 hours a week) on minimum wage will still be an income tax payer.........

Of course for every £1,000 the allowance goes up the tax payer will be only £200 a year 'better off' or lets put how people can better see = £3.84 a week...Perhaps the same as 3 loaves of bread and a jar of cheap jam......

Of course when politicians bang on about removing X number of people from paying tax they forget to mention that the higher paid will also get the same benefit......

astradt1 wrote:Raising personal allowances only works up to the point where one stops paying tax due to being on a wage low enough to except them.......

Of course the current and proposed allowance will still mean that someone working full time (40 hours a week) on minimum wage will still be an income tax payer.........

Of course for every £1,000 the allowance goes up the tax payer will be only £200 a year 'better off' or lets put how people can better see = £3.84 a week...Perhaps the same as 3 loaves of bread and a jar of cheap jam......

Of course when politicians bang on about removing X number of people from paying tax they forget to mention that the higher paid will also get the same benefit......

Hi astrad1 what about the people that do not enough to benefit from the reduced tax allowance there are plenty earning under the £9,400, they will not benefit but the ones getting the 5p tax cut will anything from £40,000 to £107,000 per year the Tories made sure tory friends and donors would be PAID OFF.

Our complicated tax system ensures that the tax threshold begins to recede in some circumstances. Pensioners for example can find themselves paying 50% tax on income "over the permitted amount" due to the allowance being reduced by a Pound in every Two pounds over the limit which is about £24,000 a year. Age allowance will not increase in this Government's term.

bobby wrote:Ivan said in answer to Blueturando: Housing benefit is out of control, not because of wicked claimants but because of the rents which greedy landlords charge.

What I wonder is, just how many of these greedy Landlords are your average Labour suporter, and how many are your typical Tory, including the present Government members.

That is an easy one bobby NONE, I lived in London from 16yrs until I was 19yrs and half my pay went on rent for ONE room eat sleep and socialize shared kitchen with two others and bathroom shared with FIVE others.

Redflag wrote:

astradt1 wrote:Raising personal allowances only works up to the point where one stops paying tax due to being on a wage low enough to except them.......

Of course the current and proposed allowance will still mean that someone working full time (40 hours a week) on minimum wage will still be an income tax payer.........

Of course for every £1,000 the allowance goes up the tax payer will be only £200 a year 'better off' or lets put how people can better see = £3.84 a week...Perhaps the same as 3 loaves of bread and a jar of cheap jam......

Of course when politicians bang on about removing X number of people from paying tax they forget to mention that the higher paid will also get the same benefit......

Hi astrad1 what about the people that do not enough to benefit from the reduced tax allowance there are plenty earning under the £9,400, they will not benefit but the ones getting the 5p tax cut will anything from £40,000 to £107,000 per year the Tories made sure tory friends and donors would be PAID OFF.

Ho, I quite agree that those who don't earn enough to pay tax will not benefit from any future increase in allowances, but when politicians state the number who will benefit they include those at the bottom to make the number taken out of tax look bigger.........

astradt1 wrote:

Redflag wrote:

astradt1 wrote:Raising personal allowances only works up to the point where one stops paying tax due to being on a wage low enough to except them.......

Of course the current and proposed allowance will still mean that someone working full time (40 hours a week) on minimum wage will still be an income tax payer.........

Of course for every £1,000 the allowance goes up the tax payer will be only £200 a year 'better off' or lets put how people can better see = £3.84 a week...Perhaps the same as 3 loaves of bread and a jar of cheap jam......

Of course when politicians bang on about removing X number of people from paying tax they forget to mention that the higher paid will also get the same benefit......

Hi astrad1 what about the people that do not enough to benefit from the reduced tax allowance there are plenty earning under the £9,400, they will not benefit but the ones getting the 5p tax cut will anything from £40,000 to £107,000 per year the Tories made sure tory friends and donors would be PAID OFF.

Ho, I quite agree that those who don't earn enough to pay tax will not benefit from any future increase in allowances, but when politicians state the number who will benefit they include those at the bottom to make the number taken out of tax look bigger.........

So its the same old trick "Smoke & Mirrors".

Welfare isn't the problem. The current division of the spoils is the problem. And simply taxing the rich/reasonably rich more will not suffice - we need actual wage reductions for the top 20-30% of earners and wage rises for those lower down the scale.

Considering the following: Since '79 the general workforces/ordinary workers share of GDP shrunk by 12% up to 2008.....and their share is still shrinking. That money has been redirected/redistributed back into the hands of the few. In other words the rich have taken/stolen 12% of the pot off ordinary people and filled their own pockets. - it would seem more reasonable that the rich cough up the few billion the Tories are currently raping off those dependent on welfare.

Those bosses and shareholders are sponging off the state to top up what they pay low paid workers - who need tax credits, housing benefits, etc in order to get by........because bosses and shareholders award themselves a disproportionate share of the profits. They overvalue themselves. They should pay employees a living wage, stop depending on the state to 'top up' wages, and then award themselves accordingly from what remains.........instead of raping the welfare system to boost profits and their own pockets.

If a business can't pay their employees a 'living wage', without depending on 'charitable' top ups from the state, a business is either

a) overvalued
b) ran by people who overvalue themselves
c) pays it's owners, management, and share holders too much - and needs to reduce what these people are paid in order to pay general workers a living wage.

The state should not be subsidising private business by paying half their wage bill for them. That simply makes the business a benefit leech - a sponger - a shirker.

I recall threads I started on the MSN boards years ago suggesting a general strike was necessary, and the need for a large scale social housing project, weren't met with much enthusiasm or interest.

tlttf wrote:Steve, once again a great article.

If any government wants to help those that aspire for a better life surely rather than raise welfare payments (only meant to be a safety net rather than a keep net) then the correct thing to do is raise the level of personal allowance so the lower paid keep more of their money. The coalition has done this. Remember Brown took away the 10p tax for low earners? It makes me worry about the obsession with the Tories considering Labour have been proven to help the high earners firstly and then not bothered with the low paid, simply concentrated on the unemployed regardless. Not a policy for economic growth whatever your politics.

As others already beat me to saying, raising the personal allowance is no help at all to anyone not earning enough to exceed it. Brown's removal of the bottom tax-rate was ludicrous and, for me, incomprehensible.

The coalition has raised the tax allowance and that's fine for some, but without increasing people's actual income, it doesn't really help those who most need it. The coalition has taken far more out of the pockets of low earners through wage caps, benefit cuts and increased VAT than it will ever put back in.

sickchip wrote:Welfare isn't the problem. The current division of the spoils is the problem. And simply taxing the rich/reasonably rich more will not suffice - we need actual wage reductions for the top 20-30% of earners and wage rises for those lower down the scale.

Did you see my post on how to achieve a living wage and vastly reduce the income-related benefits bill, mate? It's on this forum and at http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/how-to-ensure-a-living-wage-or-better-without-increasing-prices/

Let's see what happens when people on welfare realise they have to pay council tax and more of their rent from April. I can see trouble ahead.

Let's face the music and dance!

skwalker,

Thanks for the link. I remember raising this idea, about business depending on state hand outs to top up employees paltry wages, on MSN when Labour were still at the helm. Somebody told me I was a 'dangerous' person to raise such an idea. Since then, however, many have latched on to it......and it is being realised as a perverse truism of neo-liberalism/greed by many other commentators. It really does stink of greed and demonstrates how unrealistic many of these company heads and shareholders are about the validity of their businesses.

I always enjoy your posts, and often check your blog. Keep up the good work - and try not to get as despondent as I am.

If any government wants to help those that aspire for a better life surely rather than raise welfare payments (only meant to be a safety net rather than a keep net) then the correct thing to do is raise the level of personal allowance so the lower paid keep more of their money. The coalition has done this. Remember Brown took away the 10p tax for low earners? It makes me worry about the obsession with the Tories considering Labour have been proven to help the high earners firstly and then not bothered with the low paid, simply concentrated on the unemployed regardless. Not a policy for economic growth whatever your politics.

tlttf. LOL. If you enter that pile of rubbish for the Booker Prize for Fiction, nobody else would stand a chance.

So there you have it, folks, Labour is the party for high earners! That must be why all the gin-soaked colonels and stockbrokers in Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire turn out in their droves to vote Labour. That must be why Cameron has a safe Labour seat in Buckinghamshire. Or does he? Could it be that you’re filling this forum with just another pack of your lies? At least you don't appear to have posted anything libellous today, so I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies.

The issue isn’t about “raising welfare payments” but not reducing them in real terms. The problem is that wages are too low to live on – hence the reason why 60% of benefit claimants are in work – and rents are far too high. Why not a return to rent controls, so that greedy landlords can be stopped from receiving these massive handouts from the state?

It’s usually the Liberal Democrats who try to make capital out of the rise in the income tax threshold, not Tory trolls. What they never add is that VAT went up to 20% to negate most of the benefit, and if that wasn’t enough, working tax credits were reduced. And who is suffering most from the trebling of student tuition fees, I wonder? Not the children of Cameron or the prat Boris Johnson, to whom such amounts are just “chicken feed”.

Gordon Brown did indeed abolish the 10p income tax band (he also introduced it, but Tories never tell you that), and it was a bad political mistake. But while the low paid were getting 10p off their income tax, higher rate taxpayers were getting 40p off because it pushed up the thresholds, so it was a very inefficient way of helping the lowest earners. The mistake was in introducing the 10p rate in the first place. Tories never remind us that at the same time as abolishing the 10p rate, Brown reduced the standard rate from 22% to 20%, the lowest level it has been since the 1930s.

Perhaps the last sentence of your post is the funniest of all – “not a policy for economic growth whatever your politics”. And you suppose that Osborne’s austerity policy is, do you? Try reading some history and see if you can find an example of where austerity has ever worked, because I can’t. Unemployment has just risen to 26.5% in Greece, despite years of austerity measures. It’s like expecting an unemployed man to pay off all his debts.

John Maynard Keynes was the only person who had the right idea when he said: "Take care of unemployment, and the budget will take care of itself”. Whether you borrow or print money, spending on projects which create jobs (so that employees can in turn spend and pay tax) is the only way out of the hole that our friends in the City put us in. I heard on the news today that the new Japanese PM has just worked that out for his country, but I'm sure our Bullingdon boys think they know better.

Just tonight saw he post on Youtube of Artist Taxi Driver - who has obviously read Marx et al.
Question was, why, when there's so much work to do to maintain civilisation, are there no jobs?
Found his argument convincing myself

Ivan, I've already told you I don't fancy you please desist with your crude chat up technique and stop stalking me.

Sickchip, I agreed with you on MSN about the mistake of tax credits to the working man. It allowed companies pay a low wage and meant they had no need to act with a social conscience, I wonder who started that game?

AS for benefits, it shouldn't be a lifestyle choice. When brought in it was a short term safety net (a very good one) but labours obsession from 1997 with state control and unlimited immigration and dumbing down of education changed the populations outlook. Throw in a couple of illegal wars and you end up with Britain today.

You forgot to throw in that the UK is on its knees tittf, and since the tories have been in power for 3 years (except for 4 months) it is them that have stifled growth and I hope you noticed the two Private sector companies that will be shedding 2,200 jobs Jessops and Honda.

bobby, what's going on, I agree again. Thatcher changed the game, and Blair and Co couldn't wait to carry on. In her defence manufacturing (as was) had become too expensive and cheaper to import, the unions were blackmailing all governments in power and somebody had to take them on. Your right about unemployment to a point, Labours trick was to put the unemployed on a worthless 6 week course that maybe taught them stuff they should have learnt at school (another defunct organisation, thank you Labour). Oh and the 1/4 million people on these pointless courses claimed benefits yet strangely got missed off of the unemployment register. Aren't statistics lovely?

I've already told you I don't fancy you please desist with your crude chat up technique and stop stalking me

tlttf. Don’t push your luck. Answering your deceitful posts isn’t 'stalking', it’s called putting the record straight with a few facts. The only stalking there’s ever been on this forum was conducted by you against a former moderator.

Josef Goebbels is alleged to have said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Since then it has become standard Tory practice, as your latest offering demonstrates.

the mistake of tax credits to the working man. It allowed companies pay a low wage and meant they had no need to act with a social conscience

What a way to distort the truth! Tax credits were introduced BECAUSE companies weren’t paying a living wage. And since when have companies operated with a social conscience? They’re about maximising their profits and paying the lowest wages they can get away with, not the highest they can afford.

As for benefits, it shouldn't be a lifestyle choice

It isn’t. 60% of people receiving benefits are in work, as has been mentioned a number of times, but just keep ignoring the truth. Jobseekers’ Allowance is worth only 15% of the average wage - hardly a way to finance a ‘lifestyle’ – and most people receive it for less than a year. Out of work benefit levels fall well below income standards, according to detailed research into what ordinary people think should go into a minimum household budget.

In households with two or more generations of working age, there were only 0.3% where neither generation had ever worked. In a third of these, the member of the younger generation had been out of work for less than a year. Only 1% of sons in the families tracked had never worked by the time they were 29.

You could get the facts from here, but you won’t be interested in them because they undermine your grotty and squalid prejudices:-
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/mythbuster-welfare-reform/

labours obsession from 1997 with state control

Haha, your mate posted that crap yesterday. I wonder why you’re singing from the same hymn sheet – was it in ‘The Daily Mail’, or do you both get a newsletter from Tory Central Office instructing you on which lies and prejudices to spew out week by week? I’m not answering it again, you can find my reply here:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t329p570-is-david-cameron-a-moron-from-the-outer-reaches-of-the-universe#32370

unlimited immigration

Lie. There’s never been any such thing in the UK. It didn’t help when John Major abolished exit controls at ports and airports (they were restored by Labour), so nobody knew if so-called ‘students’ ever finished their courses and returned home, but there have always been checks on people coming into the country.

dumbing down of education

Just a stupid and meaningless smear, unsupported by any facts. It’s the bloody fool Gove who is allowing free schools to have untrained teachers and wants children to learn poems off by heart when they could be being taught useful skills. If you knew anything about education – which you’ve made clear previously that you don’t – you’d realise that children are doing far more advanced work at an earlier age than we did at school.

Throw in a couple of illegal wars

Yeah, why not? Why stop at two? Can’t you lie a little more? Lawyers will argue ad infinitum about whether the Iraq war was or was not illegal, but Afghanistan was certainly legal. So there might have been one ‘illegal’ war, or there might have been none. But you keep telling your lies if you must - only not here. Our posting rule 4 makes it very clear that “messages which are clearly intended to deceive and mislead members are likely to be deleted.”
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t18-posting-rules
Don’t be surprised if that rule gets enforced.

Hello Landy. I hope you and yours had a Good Christmas and New Year.

TLTTF said. bobby, what's going on, I agree again.

I think it proves that I am no more a Comunist, than you a Fascist, and lets face it theres a whole lot in between.

tlttf said. Labours trick was to put the unemployed on a worthless 6 week course that maybe taught them stuff they should have learnt at school

What you mean like the totally useless Tory YTS scheme that this present shower of shit are trying to revitalise albeit with a different name, only the Tories scheme was aimed at exploiting kids for 6 months at a time not just 6 weeks.

I guess when the Tories had such a massive unemployment figure, they needed to keep the slave (YTS) trade vibrant for as long as 6 months at a time, so it says more for Labour that they only needed to have them for 6 weeks. It could be argued that 6 weeks is training, whereas 6 months is exploitation for the sake of a free work force albeit transient. Had Labour ever had an unemployment figure anywhere near that of the Tories, then they may well have increased their scheme from 6 weeks to 6 months, but as Labour don’t seem to have the propensity for unemployment as do the Tories, so I guess it becomes a bit hypothetical

Through those terrible Tory years, (well it certainly was for me and mine) had the Tories not have put many thousands on incapacity benefit and over a million on YTS schemes, the true figure for unemployment would have been in excess of 5 million. Sorry I can not give a link to verify as I am working on memory.

Harold Wilson's government imposed a wage-freeze in the 1960s.
http://marxists.org/archive/foot-paul/1968/xx/wilson.htm

One Company I worked for thought they had got round the problem by promoting senior clerks to be Managers. Nobody after that could get promoted until about ten or twelve years later.

bobby wrote:Redflag. What also seems to be forgotten when playing the blame game (which I am now playing), is how the Evil Thatcher was quite happy putting redundant miners, ship builders and Steel workers on incapacity benefits in order to keep their unemployment figure to a mere 3 million and up to 3.8 million when John ( fancy a Currey) Major took charge. If a person is on incapacity benefit they don't have to make the regular trips to the Job Centre or evidence any form of Job Seeking, is it any wonder that the thousands who where thrown on the scrap heap for no other reason but to destroy any power base the workers may have had (Trades Unions). The hearts get ripped out of these people then they are called scroungers. How can they become strivers when their entire communities Towns and Cities are laid waste by evil Tory Dogma .If anyone should carry the blame for starting benefits to be used as a life style choice, surely it must be the people who firstly destroyed Britain’s manufacturing, then encouraging their victims to become disabled as opposed to showing on their already massive unemployment figures.
What short memories some people seem to have.

Now Cameron and giddy Gideon are trying the same thing but the workers are paying twice, losing there job then being called skivers or scroungers it is true they are the nasty party, well there is 800 + from Honda cars and 1400 from Jessops I wonder what Cameron will call them much the same as the rest of the people that have lost there jobs and with high unemployment how are they expected to get a job. There is only one thing for it bobby people of the UK are going to have to get off there hands and let there voices be heard.

What gets me angry bobby is Cameron said the private sector would pick up the slack from the public sector, its the private sector where jobs are being lost and I do not believe him when he or his ministers say the they have got 1 Million people back to work more than likely its zero hour contracts or at best 15 hours a week which for a family is not enough earned to keep a family.