NJS

1% fraud which includes genuine errors Worth the vitriol that they all get?

So all his concerns have gone for an extra 50k a week (guess). What a slimy piece of scouse shit.

One of the worst facets of the election campaign was the notion that Labour had "invented" benefits culture when for the majority of their term unemployment wasn't that high and of course forgetting the vast increases in the 80s - trying to argue that the fact there are generations of people who haven't worked does suggest more than 13 years was like pissing in the wind. (The same applies to "broken Britain"). I think people though that as unemployement had gone down it had somehow been confined to history and so a return to it, even though for "real" reasons, can somehow be stigmatised for political reasons.

Anyone remember when Piers Merchant (Tory MP for Mewcastle Central) spent a week on the dole in the 80s? Even allowing for the fact he knew it was only a week and so negated the despair of not knowing when it would end it completely sobered him up, visibly affecting him. Might be a good idea to make the cabinet millionaires do the same (Tory and Labour).

I meant people with suddenly increased disposable income through tax cuts and/or who can afford it expanding the buy-to-let market. This will be particularly lucrative given their policy of moving social housing to market rents. A cynic would suggest a connection.

I admit to gritting my teeth and saying "sounds good" to a few points. One of the scenarios I can see is the plan "working" and then huge tax cuts being made either before of after the next election. I think if that happens it will cause a huge property bubble - again.

Apart from a fuck off new smartphone, there's nothing I really want or need to buy in the near future

Of course they rely on that selfish attitude - I'm not supposed to care about mates who are civil servants or the schools or council facilities I don't use. Shoot me for being brought up correctly but I do.

Surely your tax is going upto 50% then? No - not by a long way - as I said on the Child benefit thread theres a perception in this country that millions earn good salaries and £44k (Cb threshold) is "middle income" - it isn't - in fact I think that level was the bottom of the top 10%.

Has anyone read the basis of his claim that the top 10% of earners will be hit hardest? I know I fall into that category (I consider myself reasonably well paid but in no way rich) and apart from the increase in rail fares I can't see any "direct" effect of the cuts on my income whatsoever.

Absolutely fuck all to do with mechanisation and the decimation of the Steel industry was only a success in terms of a tiny surviving part of it at the cost of entire towns killed. I don't understand how someone from Shields and living 20 miles from Consett could be so ignorant. Suggest you read your history as well. Ofcourse it was going to lead to job cuts.... Thats what happens when you modernise industry and stop subsidising it. How any one with an ounce of sense thinks this country could have continued with uncompetitive, subsidised industries in the face of the rise of the east, amazes me. Don't need to read it - I lived through it - my best mates were miners. The closure programme took no account of modernisation or investment - and as for subsidies - they were always happy to subsidise the nuclear industry, farming and of coure banks (see Johnson Matthey) with no regard to competition but only to politics. Why do other European countries like Germany still have mines?

Absolutely fuck all to do with mechanisation and the decimation of the Steel industry was only a success in terms of a tiny surviving part of it at the cost of entire towns killed. I don't understand how someone from Shields and living 20 miles from Consett could be so ignorant.

I know that people like me can be accused of harping back to Thacher's time in power but one thing I will say for New Labour - they didn't spend 13 years or even 5 as far as I can remember mentioning her every fucking day.

Probably causing the crash earlier.

Nobody centralised government more than Thatcher (see controlling council budget via poll/council tax limits as an example). Cameron's supposed devolving of power to councils/people is probably the most anti-Thatcher thing he's proposed.

Surely reading biased articles from both sides leads to the truth somewhere in the middle? That article is a bit soft on Labour but the pointsabout the Tories pledging to match public spending until 2008 and Redwood's call for more deregulation are killers.

We employ someone whose entire purpose is to reduce tax paid by the branch - must be nice knowing he's unique.

If post-invasion hand wringing leads to serious concerns about womens rights in a country thousands of miles away, I await with baited breath the invasion of Saudi Arabia. That just shows how ignorant you are according to KSA.

I think the trouble will occur as people celebrating and mourning clash rather than any debate over cost (though one attitude fuels the other).

So why should we find the Taliban's abuses so worthy of outrage and action but turn a blind eye to the same actions in Saudi? If you want to argue that maintaining them as an ally suits our interests then fair enough but at a moral level there is absolutley fuck all difference - despite your arrogant condescension.

Just to clarify I do have a basic empathatic attitude to human suffering - what I'm arguing agaisnt is that the west has some kind of noble agenda. The Taliban and more especially Saddam were seen as "okay" until it became expediant to declare them as failed states - a criterion which could be applied to many countries on human rights/terrorist support bases but political alliances mean we're supposed to say "Saddam was evil, Saudi is okay"

KSA: How many years were the Taliban allowed to rule with all that entails in terms of human rughts and run Al Quadia camps before anything was done? Did the camps suddenly come to notice on Sept 12th 2001?

Nice to see you descending to personal abuse. The invasion of Afghanistan was about revenge - it had absolutely fuck all to do with making the world safer as a blind man can see that the extremists don't need just one base that can be wiped out easily as they can easily shift. Has it worked - is the world safer? or as HF has said has all they've done is spawn more extremists. Blair can fuck off too - he was elected with a notional ethical foreign policy but that never stopped him selling arms to all kind of cunts around the world. Him expressing regret is akin to Ashley's "we've made mistakes" - it cuts no ice with me. I honestly couldn't care less if the Taliban were still in charge - would the lives of Afghans be any worse? Going on a world tour to sort out cunts sounds good - the only problem is a major part of the list would include allies and countries we wouldn't dare attack (China). The idea that the task in Afghanistan is some kind of noble or just campaign to bring happiness to its population is the biggest load of shit going.

I don't criticise the condemnation or disagree with it - I just don't like it being used in isolation to suit the agenda that all Muslims are inhuman and have no place in the UK. I don't think any extremists can or should exist in the modern world - again its the notion that every Muslim in the UK is an extremist that I argue against. I also don''t believe that removing the Taliban was ever the true "mission" in Afghanistan - if it was then they wouldn't have been armed, trained and encouraged in the past with the full knowledge of their abominable regime. As an example of this I'd point out how muted the objections were to Karzai's government allowing rape within marriage - it seems Taliban like polcies are okay when they are enacted by puppets.

Why is any history of the supression of dissent by terror irrelevant to the Taliban when that's exactly what they are doing? Can either you or Stevie explain why this is different to any other period/regime who've done the same things? "21st century" or "Muslims" doesn't work.