Politics

[Renton 17828]

 

 

I have no I retest in "points". (Haven't even read them tbh - one of those can't be arsed with nowt days), I was merely pointing out that the last Labour government were responsible for a whole lot of bad shit, yet you don't run around calling the many Labour supporters.

 

I know you were probably just baiting / teasing

 

Bringing up Labour's past record is as pointless as banging on about Shepherd's tenure at NUFC. I can only assume you've lost interest in politics now because of the absolute shambolic performance of your party and their leaders. What an extraordinarily shallow and fickle man you are.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Renton

[Christmas Tree 3997]

 

Bringing up Labour's past record is as pointless as banging on about Shepherd's tenure at NUFC. I can only assume you've lost interest in politics now because of the absolute shambolic performance of your party and their leaders. What an extraordinarily shallow and fickle man you are.

 

On the contrary and given the context, Labours past record was vital.

 

If the coalitions two years (including the much heralded pension policy and taking millions out of income tax altotether) is considered disgusting, then some of the stuff under Labours reign must be abhorrent, particularly bearing in mind the coalition are only following the same austerity path that Labour intended to follow had they got in in 2010.

 

But I digress, we are getting into politics when Im not really in the mood for your bleating. Sorry.

[Renton 17828]

If you're not in the mood for it may I respectfully request you avoid this thread rather than simply ignore other people's well considered posts and talking absolute shit instead? Cheers.

[Gemmill 34623]

it's like Parliament in here.

 

"Would my right honourable friend agree that he is talking out of his oversized hoop?"

[ewerk 26469]

The problem is that CT treats the whole thing as a sport.

 

Only he's even more clueless about politics.

[Dr Gloom 19839]

If the coalitions two years (including the much heralded pension policy and taking millions out of income tax altotether) is considered disgusting, then some of the stuff under Labours reign must be abhorrent, particularly bearing in mind the coalition are only following the same austerity path that Labour intended to follow had they got in in 2010.

 

 

where are you getting this crap from? the whole pre-election debate was framed on brown not cutting as quickly or as deeply as cameron to avoid a double dip recession with the tories positioning themselves as the responsible party when it came to the economy and dealing with the deficit.

[The Fish 9015]

 

[Dr Gloom 19839]

 

 

yes but the daily mail says that fixing the benefits problem will solve the problem with the public finances!

 

it's all complete bollocks isn't it. as i said a few pages back; this austerity drive is not about reducing the deficit; it's all about the tories trying to rewrite the social contract that was established after the second world war - it's something they've been trying to do for decades and they're somehow managing to push it through now, hiding behind populist crap about benefit scroungers cheating the system.

 

i'm confident they won't succeed though. luckily, britain is still a country where there is such a thing as society and tearing up the welfare state and the nhs won't stand with the majority.

[Monkeys Fist 38829]

Not sure if anyone's aware of the Universal Credit( one payment of all benefits, in cash, direct to the head of household.) idea the Tories are forcing through, but here's the results of a test run of it .....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756567

 

Way to bring down the benefit bill, Tories, yay!

[The Fish 9015]

Another idea politicians have floated is to have benefits paid onto a card which can only be used to buy food and the like...

 

 

[Renton 17828]

Not sure if anyone's aware of the Universal Credit( one payment of all benefits, in cash, direct to the head of household.) idea the Tories are forcing through, but here's the results of a test run of it .....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756567

 

Way to bring down the benefit bill, Tories, yay!

 

Yeah,this was briefly discussed and ignored by CT a few months back. The outcome of giving housing benefit to tenants rather than land lords was more than predictable. A 'no shit Sherlock' study if ever I saw one.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Renton

[Monkeys Fist 38829]

It's mental. I'd love to hear the thinking behind it.

The immediate effect on the social housing association Mrs. Fist works for is a huge drop in monthly income- where previously they received the housing benefit directly, they will get a double whammy of needing more staff to collect what was previously automated, but having a hugely reduced budget to pay them- mental.

The social effects, which she's already seeing, make me shudder.

One householder only, usually the father if present, will be paid the entire benefit lump sum. In the families Mrs. F. deals with, this means the pisshead/junkie father will have sole charge of an increased amount of beer/drug tokens, fuck the rent , fuck the gas/electric, fuck the council tax etc.

"Fuck, we're homeless. "

 

The malice behind this policy is so transparent and leaves me staggered.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

What's the malice behind it?

 

What do you think the intention is?

[Gemmill 34623]

Where's the malice behind singling out the poorest in society and making them even poorer?

 

Edited March 13, 2013 by Gemmill

[Monkeys Fist 38829]

You tell me the intention Chubs, you're the Tory.

 

The result will be a significant rise in homelessness and more debt for the poorest of our country.

 

Will you be out there, manning the soup kitchen and handing out blankets to newly homeless, is that not how the Big Society works?

[ewerk 26469]

Another idea politicians have floated is to have benefits paid onto a card which can only be used to buy food and the like...

 

 

 

Given that it appears that a large proportion of benefit recipients aren't responsible enough to use their housing allowance for what it was intended, is it such a bad idea?

[Renton 17828]

This government is idiotic. There doesn't seem to be a day that passes when they haven't done a u turn - today it's their own backbenchers rebelling against minimum alcohol pricing, yesterday they had to make concessions over the truly horrific bed room tax idea. Then there's the shambles that is the NHS. I think the problem is incompetence as much as malice tbh, they just don't have a fucking clue.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Renton

[Dr Gloom 19839]

We should be shouting this from the fucking rooftops

 

Wednesday 2 May 2012 21.00 BST

 

The scourge of our wealth divide

The annual Sunday Times Rich List yields four very important conclusions for the governance of Britain (Report, Weekend, 28 April). It shows that the richest 1,000 persons, just 0.003% of the adult population, increased their wealth over the last three years by £155bn. That is enough for themselves alone to pay off the entire current UK budget deficit and still leave them with £30bn to spare.

 

Second, this mega-rich elite, containing many of the bankers and hedge fund and private equity operators who caused the financial crash in the first place, have not been made subject to any tax payback whatever commensurate to their gains. Some 77% of the budget deficit is being recouped by public expenditure cuts and benefit cuts, and only 23% is being repaid by tax increases. More than half of the tax increases is accounted for by the VAT rise which hits the poorest hardest. None of the tax increases is specifically aimed at the super-rich.

 

Third, despite the biggest slump for nearly a century, these 1,000 richest are now sitting on wealth greater even than at the height of the boom just before the crash. Their wealth now amounts to £414bn, equivalent to more than a third of Britain's entire GDP. They include 77 billionaires and 23 others, each possessing more than £750m.

 

The increase in wealth of this richest 1,000 has been £315bn over the last 15 years. If they were charged capital gains tax on this at the current 28% rate, it would yield £88bn, enough to pay off 70% of the entire deficit. It seems however that Osborne takes the notorious view of the New York heiress, Leonora Helmsley: "Only the little people pay taxes."

 

Michael Meacher MP

 

Labour, Oldham West and Royton

 

 

http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/02/scourge-wealth-divide

 

 

 

[Tooj 17]

It's fucking disgusting man.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

You tell me the intention Chubs, you're the Tory.

 

The result will be a significant rise in homelessness and more debt for the poorest of our country.

 

Will you be out there, manning the soup kitchen and handing out blankets to newly homeless, is that not how the Big Society works?

 

I don't think me manning the soup kitchens would be helpful.

[Dr Gloom 19839]

They'd be Heinz beans kitchens in no time

[Christmas Tree 3997]

 

Given that it appears that a large proportion of benefit recipients aren't responsible enough to use their housing allowance for what it was intended, is it such a bad idea?

 

This is the dilemma.

 

Welfare was there to help the poorest in society and those who had fallen on hard times.

 

It has now grown into something it was never intended to be and has been failed by consecutive governments, but particularly the last labour government.

 

I'm sure the vast majority claiming this are decent people who can handle their finances. Should they be penalised for the few. As Ewerk points out should they also be given food tokens and fuel stamps so there is no danger of dad the junkie shooting that money up his arm?

 

Like most on here I don't know enough about this particular change to say if it will work or not, I suppose the good thing is that it is being trailed first.

 

But simply knocking the intention to let the majority of decent families look after there own finances seems petty.

[Happy Face 29]

Only someone with zero understanding or empathy of a junkies situation would think food stamps would sort them out.

 

They don't all of a sudden stop buying the crack and buy in a load of pop tarts...they sell their food stamps for less than their real value in order to feed the habit in whatever small way they can. They turn to crime more quickly because they're less able to finance the addiction.

 

It's a totally false, straw-man argument for a ridiculous policy. Housing benefits being paid directly to housing agencies is logical. Making sure that the poorest people have no pocket money whatsoever is asking for carnage.

[Dr Gloom 19839]

What a load of bollocks. Being on benefits is shite, no matter what the daily mail would have you believe. Does anyone honestly think most people who are on benefits wouldn't rather have a proper job?

 

The poor did not cause the problem and they shouldn't be held responsible. Punish the super rich ffs, not those on the poverty line. It's pure populism from the Tories, who have been dying for a

 

[NJS 3986]

That 155bn figure is the crux for me - thats not even their wealth its the fucking increase in their wealth.

 

Note that theres no trickle down involved because as ive said before its mpossible to spend any money when you're that rich - it just becomes a cock measurement on a bank statement.