Politics

[Renton 18287]

Exactly the same as you in that some are good and some are bad. Rentons standpoint is that all are good and are only being removed as part of a sinister Tory plan to reduce services.

 

Absolute bullshit. I said last night that not all targets were necessarily good, so don't make a strawman argument. The second part is true to an extent though, and its a point you have failed to address again, and again, and again. If you remove the clinical audits, how can you monitor the effectiveness of the Healthcare service? If nothing else, please answer that point.

[NJS 4030]

Newsnight tonight interviewed a Stockton family on benefits.

 

£36,000 a year, all from benefits.

 

Thanks Labour

 

Can you name the legislation that was passed since 1997 that allows that?

 

I'm getting sick of the people who keep talking about the benefits culture as some kind of deliberate ploy by Labour to get votes by looking after "their own" - have the days of 3.5 million unemployed been forgotten by the twats already?

 

Of course there may be an underlying capitalist need for a pool of unemployed and I'm not saying there isn't an impetus to incease incapaity benefit but to suggest its something new and wasn't happening under Thatcher is fucking ridiculous.

 

 

The unemployed days of Thatcher were summed up in a lot minds by a program called "Boys from the Black Stuff" where a guy called Yosser would walk from site to site with the famous words "Gis a Job".

 

His equivalent today says "Gis a Handout".

 

The situation above regarding the Stockton family that can afford £2,000 a year to spend on their kids christmas presents is not unusual.

 

You seem to be in some sort of denial that the only blame for this situation is Labour. Labour have added the new benefits, increased them and increased them again.

 

If nothing else, surely you agree that £36,000 a year for a family on benefits is wrong and should be tackled?

 

Don't fucking quote the Blackstuff as some kind of nostalgic tribute to Thatcherism - I notice you don't refer to the rest of the show which illustrated a UK exactly the same as its heading for now - think of the main character slaughtering his pets for food for his family - a Tory ideal I'm sure.

 

"only blame for the situation is Labour" - have a fucking word with yourself man - I have a second cousin who left school in 84 and never worked for about 15 years thanks to various fiddles - how the fuck is Labour to blame for him?

 

Of course its wrong - but until global sterilisation is introduced and capitalists are paying worthwhile wages I don't see an alternative - would you see the kids starve?

 

(I'm also still waiting for the legislation that increased benefits).

[ChezGiven 0]

http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2010/0...ctor-budget-obr

 

To return to one of your previous questions to me CT about why people should agree with me about the stimulus when everyone says we have to cut: please see a supporter of my view in the first paragraph below. I have highlighted some points of interest.

 

This Budget kills recovery at birth

 

So Slasher slashed. He failed to heed the warnings that this was the moment to stimulate growth rather than destroy it, most recently from the president of the United States. In a letter to fellow leaders of the G20 nations, Barack Obama warned that while it was important to put in place credible plans to cut deficits, withdrawing fiscal stimulus so early could endanger the fragile economic recovery. But to no avail. George "Slasher" Osborne was not for turning.

 

I am now convinced that as a result of this reckless Budget the UK will suffer a double-dip recession or worse, not least because there is no room for interest-rate cuts, although lots of additional quantitative easing (QE) from the Bank of England could soften the blow. As the acting leader of the opposition, Harriet Harman, said in Labour's response: "This Budget isn't driven by economics. It's driven by ideology." It will indeed be bad for jobs, as she rightly argued. Interestingly, Harman pointed out that the area least affected by the so-called austerity measures will be Cheshire, home to the Chancellor's own constituency, Tatton. Politics, like sausage-making, is not pretty.

 

Public-sector pain

 

I believe this Budget will stifle the British recovery in its infancy. Now, to be fair, there are several proposals in it that look like they may well stimulate consumer spending and boost employment. But the fundamental problem is that they are accompanied by measures that will lower aggregate demand and cause hundreds of thousands of job losses.

 

So let's welcome reductions in corporation tax and small company tax, to get firms investing, and National Insurance cuts for firms outside the south-east, to aid new hiring. But these will be cancelled out by additional public spending cuts of £32bn a year by 2014-2015, plus £8bn in tax increases over and above those to which Labour had already committed itself. This will result in cuts of 25 per cent for every government department bar Health and International Development. The impact on public-sector jobs is likely to be hugely damaging.

 

A critical problem for the government is that the UK public sector is still highly unionised - 57 per cent of public-sector workers were members of a trade union in 2008, compared to 15.5 per cent in the private sector. And the public-sector unions are not going to sit idly by and swallow all these unnecessary and destructive job cuts heading their way. Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, called the Budget "economically dangerous and socially divisive". Strikes look inevitable.

 

The biggest issue, however, is what the likely macroeconomic effects of the Budget will be. For political cover, Slasher set up the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which produced its first forecast on 14 June. On the day of the Budget, I took part in a discussion on BBC Radio with the former Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson, who claimed that it had been necessary to create the OBR because the previous government had fiddled the figures. Wrong as ever, Nigel. The OBR had already reported that economic growth was broadly the same as, and the Budget deficit somewhat lower than, Labour had claimed.

 

Then, on 22 June, Budget Day, the OBR produced a second forecast taking into account the Chancellor's new fiscal measures and showing lower growth in 2010 and 2011 but higher growth after that. The OBR's central projection is that growth will be 1.2 per cent in 2010, 2.3 per cent in 2011 and 2.8 per cent in 2012. That implies quarterly growth rates of 0.6 per cent from the second quarter of 2010. But these forecasts have large margins of error, and indeed in each of these years there is a significant probability in the OBR forecast that growth rates could be zero or lower, before the cuts have even kicked in.

 

Based on the central projection, the OBR expects unemployment to peak at 8.1 per cent in 2010 before falling slowly to 6.1 per cent by 2014. The table on this page shows where the OBR expects growth to come from. It is predicting that, as public spending falls, private consumption and investment will rise rapidly to replace it; the declining exchange rate will result in net trade also making a major contribution. Investment fell by nearly 20 per cent in 2009, but the OBR expects it to grow by 1.3 per cent in 2010, 8.1 per cent in 2011 and by a wildly unlikely 9.9 per cent on average between 2012 and 2015. It also forecasts that the rebuilding of inventories will make a significant contribution to growth this year.

 

The OBR made it clear that there are considerable downside risks to its original forecast, but for some reason these warnings were absent in the second forecast, published after the emergency Budget. One such risk related to lending: "A major uncertainty relates to developments in credit and financial markets, in particular whether the banks are able or willing to supply credit in the amount that is normally required in the recovery phase of the economic cycle; and, if not, whether that credit can be obtained elsewhere."

 

As if on cue, on 18 June the Bank of England reported that the flow of net lending to UK businesses remained negative in April. The major UK lenders reported that demand for credit remained subdued. Total net consumer credit flows also turned slightly negative in April, with the stock of lending little changed from a year earlier. To put it simply, the banks are not lending, just as the OBR feared, which will inevitably constrain growth.

 

The OBR went on to warn that "another major area of uncertainty is whether, and to what extent, private-sector spending and employment are able to fill the gap that the cuts in public spending in our forecast leave. The prospects for external demand are also uncertain since the outlook for the euro area is particularly opaque at this time."

 

The euro area appears to be heading back into recession and the austerity measures being introduced in certain eurozone countries, especially those in Germany, will inevitably lower UK growth, too. It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that net trade will leap to our rescue.

 

“Crowding in"

So, two big issues arise from the emergency Budget. First, is the private sector going to start hiring and investing again? The tax breaks to businesses will help but this is unlikely to be enough if consumers cut back on spending in the face of fiscal retrenchment and an increased fear of unemployment.

 

Will the jobs that are to be shed in the public sector be replaced by new jobs in the private sector? Osborne apparently believes that the public sector is "crowding out" private-sector activity. Another of his Tory predecessors, Norman Lamont, made this view clear on 21 June in a newspaper article which claimed that "spending cuts do not destroy resources. They hand the money back to the private sector, where they generate higher returns and wealth-creating jobs." Wrong as ever, Norman. What is much more likely is that the public sector is "crowding in" the private sector and, if so, to cut public spending would be devastating and would likely result in the collapse of the coalition government.

 

Second, what plans do Osborne and his little Lib Dem helper Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (and former head of communications at the Cairngorms National Park), have to reverse course if, as I expect, they plunge the country back into recession? I see no evidence of an escape route or a plan B.

 

Data, after all, is king - and so far, there is zero evidence that the private sector is hiring or investing at anything like the required levels to compensate for the implosion threatening to destroy the cuts-hit public sector. And all these harsh measures have been introduced by the coalition because there is supposed to be a crisis in the bond markets, which there isn't; and that the UK is supposedly like Greece, which it is not.

 

Over the coming months I will be watching the data on investment, consumption, net trade, credit, youth unemployment, output - and especially private-sector employment - and will report back on whether Slasher's policies are working or not.

 

Meanwhile, in the United States, Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and perhaps the pre-eminent living scholar on the Great Depression, issued this stark warning in testimony to the House of Representatives' budget committee on 9 June: "This very moment is not the time to radically reduce our spending or raise our taxes, because the economy is still in a recovery mode and needs that support. Increased taxes, cuts in spending that are too large, would be a negative, would be a drag on recovery." Exactly.

 

David Blanchflower is Bruce V Rauner Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

I disagree with the raise in the VAT, I think the economy needs people to go out and start buying stuff and hiking the price of things will not encourage that in the long term. I believe that a higher taxation on corporations could have covered the sum received instead of a VAT increase.

 

I don't see believe that making it cheaper for corporations to operate in the UK will directly benefit the people as I believe the corporations' responsibilities are to their shareholders. They're not going to suddenly slash prices, they're just going to give out more dividends. I don't believe in the trickle down economy because I don't believe corporations are socially responsible entities.

 

The idea of reducing corporation tax is to try and make us a cheaper place to set up and operate a business than our European competitors. The idea is to attract new business's (like Nissan) to the UK thus helping the private sector to grow, creating jobs and growing the economy.

 

I don't believe we need to be spending as much on the defence as we do.

 

I agree and would like to see the armed forces merged. It would be radical but the right thing to do and save a lot of money

 

I don't think the cost of living raises proportionately with your income, so I believe the top earners can afford to pay a little more towards the upkeep of this country now that we're struggling (this position is strengthened when you consider it was some reckless and selfish behaviour by big earners that got us into this mess in the first place).

 

Your getting into nitty gritty territory here. A lot would say the higher earners are paying more in this budget but simply expecting to solve this problem by hammering the rich wouldnt work.

 

There you go CT, some of my beliefs. The reason I don't post more, is because there are far more informed and eloquent people speaking on the same subject formt he same side of the aisle. I just pop a message now and again because I'm not a fan of hypocrisy.

Bollox. Dont let that put you off. Quite a few posters on here simply cant address an issue without first putting the party bias glasses on. They slip into the politicians trick of old rhetoric and bluffaw! The more people posting about the issues of the day and giving their own honest opinion the better.

 

 

I don't mind admitting I have a little bias,

 

A little bias is ok

 

I'm not full on socialisma, but I am happy to admit a left wing leaning. I wonder why you trumpet the right wing cause, but insist you're "the most objective and least bias person" on here? Seems staggeringly out of step with the glaring evidence to the contrary.

 

Im one of the few Tories on here "out of the closet" so of course my views will be in the minority to the younger more radical posters. However I come at the argument from an honest personal opinion first.

 

I also believe that while the Labour party lurched to the right and stole the tories clothes, the tories have now moved further to the left.

 

Labour people are hurting at losing power, but simply shouting about "nasty tories" when a lot of what is going on seems very fair, seems to be missing the change that is taking place in politics.

 

Cameron is definitely a very different sort of Tory.

 

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Newsnight tonight interviewed a Stockton family on benefits.

 

£36,000 a year, all from benefits.

 

Thanks Labour

 

Can you name the legislation that was passed since 1997 that allows that?

 

I'm getting sick of the people who keep talking about the benefits culture as some kind of deliberate ploy by Labour to get votes by looking after "their own" - have the days of 3.5 million unemployed been forgotten by the twats already?

 

Of course there may be an underlying capitalist need for a pool of unemployed and I'm not saying there isn't an impetus to incease incapaity benefit but to suggest its something new and wasn't happening under Thatcher is fucking ridiculous.

 

 

The unemployed days of Thatcher were summed up in a lot minds by a program called "Boys from the Black Stuff" where a guy called Yosser would walk from site to site with the famous words "Gis a Job".

 

His equivalent today says "Gis a Handout".

 

The situation above regarding the Stockton family that can afford £2,000 a year to spend on their kids christmas presents is not unusual.

 

You seem to be in some sort of denial that the only blame for this situation is Labour. Labour have added the new benefits, increased them and increased them again.

 

If nothing else, surely you agree that £36,000 a year for a family on benefits is wrong and should be tackled?

 

I would say that was wrong fwiw, whilst bearing in mind it is anecdotal

 

Its what the couple said to the Newsnight interviewer in their home.

 

and I'd imagine a fairly large amount of it is Housing Benefit or Council tax relief. I find it hard to believe the '£2000 for christmas presents' bit mind - I'd need to see a breakdow of how that was possible without criminal activity.

 

Its what the couple said to the Newsnight interviewer in their home.

 

It certainly contradicts your earlier poverty coments as well.

 

They were Labour figures quoted in parliament, not mine.

 

If the Conservatives can fix this then good. Problem is to incentivise people to work you need to supply actual jobs. That didn't happen in the 1980s and it is going to be hard for it to happen now. I think we should review this thread in 4 years by which time we will have some idea if the Conservative policies have worked or not - agree?

 

No, we will all be too excited watching the majority of Newcastles first team battling it out at the world cup having just won the premiership. Polotics will be of no interest.

 

[Renton 18287]

Cameron is definitely a very different sort of Tory.

 

How can you possibly know that this early on?

 

You might be right, it is just possible that depite his background and being an Etonian he cares for the common man etc, but he's only been in power a month or so! The certainty which you make statements likes that just makes you sound like a Cameron fanboy and shows your bias, which you apparently have no self-awareness of.

[Guest alex]

He's a bit younger and he's relatively charismatic. Compared to Michael Howard anyway. That's probably about it though.

[manc-mag 1]

Michael Howard('s voice) always reminded me of James Mason. Apropos of nothing in particular.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Exactly the same as you in that some are good and some are bad. Rentons standpoint is that all are good and are only being removed as part of a sinister Tory plan to reduce services.

 

Absolute bullshit. I said last night that not all targets were necessarily good, so don't make a strawman argument. The second part is true to an extent though, and its a point you have failed to address again, and again, and again. If you remove the clinical audits, how can you monitor the effectiveness of the Healthcare service? If nothing else, please answer that point.

 

How did it manage it its many decades before target?

 

Nobody has suggested that all targets should be removed.

 

I think that Cameron has suggested that moving targets to take account of patient outcome as opposed to patients treated within a timescale is a better option.

 

While better minds than mine will have to address this, my view would be to find a better means of measuring performance overall and let the Doctors and nurses concentrate on patient care.

 

I fully understand if Im in casualty with something not serious then I may be in for a very long wait. The medical staff should feel free to use their expertise to prioritise the patients and not some silly 4 hour rule.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Newsnight tonight interviewed a Stockton family on benefits.

 

£36,000 a year, all from benefits.

 

Thanks Labour

 

Can you name the legislation that was passed since 1997 that allows that?

 

I'm getting sick of the people who keep talking about the benefits culture as some kind of deliberate ploy by Labour to get votes by looking after "their own" - have the days of 3.5 million unemployed been forgotten by the twats already?

 

Of course there may be an underlying capitalist need for a pool of unemployed and I'm not saying there isn't an impetus to incease incapaity benefit but to suggest its something new and wasn't happening under Thatcher is fucking ridiculous.

 

 

The unemployed days of Thatcher were summed up in a lot minds by a program called "Boys from the Black Stuff" where a guy called Yosser would walk from site to site with the famous words "Gis a Job".

 

His equivalent today says "Gis a Handout".

 

The situation above regarding the Stockton family that can afford £2,000 a year to spend on their kids christmas presents is not unusual.

 

You seem to be in some sort of denial that the only blame for this situation is Labour. Labour have added the new benefits, increased them and increased them again.

 

If nothing else, surely you agree that £36,000 a year for a family on benefits is wrong and should be tackled?

 

Don't fucking quote the Blackstuff as some kind of nostalgic tribute to Thatcherism - I notice you don't refer to the rest of the show which illustrated a UK exactly the same as its heading for now - think of the main character slaughtering his pets for food for his family - a Tory ideal I'm sure.

 

I wasnt, I was comparing how tough it was to be out of work then, compared to now.

 

"only blame for the situation is Labour" - have a fucking word with yourself man - I have a second cousin who left school in 84 and never worked for about 15 years thanks to various fiddles - how the fuck is Labour to blame for him?

 

The difference they had to "fiddle" then. Now they dont need to fiddle.

 

 

Of course its wrong - but until global sterilisation is introduced and capitalists are paying worthwhile wages I don't see an alternative - would you see the kids starve?

 

Personally I've never heard of anyone in this country starving other than child abuse. and yes their is an alternative to paying scoungers with five kids £36,000 a year....Its called reducing the benefits to a level that makes the alternative, work, a good option.

 

(I'm also still waiting for the legislation that increased benefits).

 

Benefits have doubled under Labour since 1997. Whether it is by new legislation or increases in the budget is immaterial, its still plain wrong.

 

Benefits should be a safety net, not a way of life.

[Renton 18287]

Exactly the same as you in that some are good and some are bad. Rentons standpoint is that all are good and are only being removed as part of a sinister Tory plan to reduce services.

 

Absolute bullshit. I said last night that not all targets were necessarily good, so don't make a strawman argument. The second part is true to an extent though, and its a point you have failed to address again, and again, and again. If you remove the clinical audits, how can you monitor the effectiveness of the Healthcare service? If nothing else, please answer that point.

 

How did it manage it its many decades before target?

 

Nobody has suggested that all targets should be removed.

 

I think that Cameron has suggested that moving targets to take account of patient outcome as opposed to patients treated within a timescale is a better option.

 

While better minds than mine will have to address this, my view would be to find a better means of measuring performance overall and let the Doctors and nurses concentrate on patient care.

 

I fully understand if Im in casualty with something not serious then I may be in for a very long wait. The medical staff should feel free to use their expertise to prioritise the patients and not some silly 4 hour rule.

 

The answer to your first question is 'very badly' as I am sure you are old enough to know.

 

What do you mean by 'patient outcomes'? This all sounds very wooly to me, in line with the idea of value-based studies - I'll be honest enough to say I don't yet understand these, although I am going to look into them.

 

What does concern me though is that these targets have not been replaced, they've been removed, in an alarmingly short period of time. As far as I know this was done without proper consultation. If you think it is reasonable to hang around A&E for 4 hours without being seen to - whatever is wrong with you - then fair enough, but I'd say that was unreasonable and constitutes a bad service. One which would not be acceptable in many countries which have better access to healthcare. The 18 week target being removed is much harder to justify, it paves the way for a return to two year waiting lists. Glad you're happy with that.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2010/0...ctor-budget-obr

 

To return to one of your previous questions to me CT about why people should agree with me about the stimulus when everyone says we have to cut: please see a supporter of my view in the first paragraph below. I have highlighted some points of interest.

 

I fully understand there are others who share your view. Richard Koo was on newsnight last night saying the same and pointing to Japans folly. They may well be right but that doesnt change the fact that all the political parties in this country disagree with that view.

 

I have said before on here that I dont think heading back into a double dip bothers many of the parties, privately. They will still come out the other side and have their eye on the longer term goal.

 

Its definitely a big gamble though.

[Renton 18287]

Newsnight tonight interviewed a Stockton family on benefits.

 

£36,000 a year, all from benefits.

 

Thanks Labour

 

Can you name the legislation that was passed since 1997 that allows that?

 

I'm getting sick of the people who keep talking about the benefits culture as some kind of deliberate ploy by Labour to get votes by looking after "their own" - have the days of 3.5 million unemployed been forgotten by the twats already?

 

Of course there may be an underlying capitalist need for a pool of unemployed and I'm not saying there isn't an impetus to incease incapaity benefit but to suggest its something new and wasn't happening under Thatcher is fucking ridiculous.

 

 

The unemployed days of Thatcher were summed up in a lot minds by a program called "Boys from the Black Stuff" where a guy called Yosser would walk from site to site with the famous words "Gis a Job".

 

His equivalent today says "Gis a Handout".

 

The situation above regarding the Stockton family that can afford £2,000 a year to spend on their kids christmas presents is not unusual.

 

You seem to be in some sort of denial that the only blame for this situation is Labour. Labour have added the new benefits, increased them and increased them again.

 

If nothing else, surely you agree that £36,000 a year for a family on benefits is wrong and should be tackled?

 

I would say that was wrong fwiw, whilst bearing in mind it is anecdotal

 

Its what the couple said to the Newsnight interviewer in their home.

 

and I'd imagine a fairly large amount of it is Housing Benefit or Council tax relief. I find it hard to believe the '£2000 for christmas presents' bit mind - I'd need to see a breakdow of how that was possible without criminal activity.

 

Its what the couple said to the Newsnight interviewer in their home.

 

It certainly contradicts your earlier poverty coments as well.

 

They were Labour figures quoted in parliament, not mine.

 

If the Conservatives can fix this then good. Problem is to incentivise people to work you need to supply actual jobs. That didn't happen in the 1980s and it is going to be hard for it to happen now. I think we should review this thread in 4 years by which time we will have some idea if the Conservative policies have worked or not - agree?

 

No, we will all be too excited watching the majority of Newcastles first team battling it out at the world cup having just won the premiership. Polotics will be of no interest.

 

 

You are aware that Newsnight reports anecdotes, aren't you? That it is motivated to sensationalise stories, like any other TV program? You hear about these benefit scroungers having plasma TVs and taking holidays to Barbados, but I rarely see any real evidence of it. I think it could only be posible if they were committing fraud (claiming and working) or were otherwise involved in criminal activity. Or they were living frugally and saving their money for Christmas......

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Cameron is definitely a very different sort of Tory.

 

How can you possibly know that this early on?

 

You might be right, it is just possible that depite his background and being an Etonian he cares for the common man etc,

 

Thatcher hated etonians

 

but he's only been in power a month or so! The certainty which you make statements likes that just makes you sound like a Cameron fanboy and shows your bias, which you apparently have no self-awareness of.

 

Yet you seem pretty certain he's the antichrist without policy to back it up.

 

[The Fish 9340]

The idea of reducing corporation tax is to try and make us a cheaper place to set up and operate a business than our European competitors. The idea is to attract new business's (like Nissan) to the UK thus helping the private sector to grow, creating jobs and growing the economy.

 

I understand their theory, I just think it's unfounded. The creation of jobs is their core idea but when a companies idea is normally get the most money out from the least money in, they aren't going to pay bottom line staff any more than they have to. I don't believe this trickle down theory works, the Yanks operate in the same way and their bottom class is crippled by it. They're still waiting for the drips to fall from the trough from which the fat cats swill.

 

 

 

I agree and would like to see the armed forces merged. It would be radical but the right thing to do and save a lot of money

 

It is controversial and it's unpopular, but I don't think we need a standing army any more, I think this country needs a defence force

 

 

Your getting into nitty gritty territory here. A lot would say the higher earners are paying more in this budget but simply expecting to solve this problem by hammering the rich wouldnt work. A lot may say that and on pure figures there probably is more cash coming from the top, but proportionately the poor are still going to be utterly fucked by this budget. The honest hard workers on less than £21k are going to be hit and hit hard, the guys on 6 figure salaries will have more to spend, sure, but they're still not going to suffer as badly as the poor. A VAT increase on a meal for two will have a noticeable effect for the low earners, it won't for the rich.

 

Bollox. Dont let that put you off. Quite a few posters on here simply cant address an issue without first putting the party bias glasses on. They slip into the politicians trick of old rhetoric and bluffaw! The more people posting about the issues of the day and giving their own honest opinion the better. But you tend to give other peoples opinion?

 

 

Im one of the few Tories on here "out of the closet" so of course my views will be in the minority to the younger more radical posters. However I come at the argument from an honest personal opinion first. So finally, FINALLY you admit bias

 

I also believe that while the Labour party lurched to the right and stole the tories clothes, the tories have now moved further to the left.

 

Labour people are hurting at losing power, but simply shouting about "nasty tories" when a lot of what is going on seems very fair, seems to be missing the change that is taking place in politics.

 

Cameron is definitely a very different sort of Tory. No, he's not, he's a different sort of Tony

[Renton 18287]

Cameron is definitely a very different sort of Tory.

 

How can you possibly know that this early on?

 

You might be right, it is just possible that depite his background and being an Etonian he cares for the common man etc,

 

Thatcher hated etonians

 

but he's only been in power a month or so! The certainty which you make statements likes that just makes you sound like a Cameron fanboy and shows your bias, which you apparently have no self-awareness of.

 

Yet you seem pretty certain he's the antichrist without policy to back it up.

 

 

Thatcher hated Etonians, and I have said I am pretty certain Cameron is the antichrist? Are you sure about that? Then I'm sure you can prove it (not sure what the relevance is of the first comment mind, even if it is true).

 

I think Cameron is a privileged man with a PR background that has no real political conviction at all. Just my opinion, I'll judge him more fully after he's been in office more than a month though, unlike you, it seems.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

 

 

Bollox. Dont let that put you off. Quite a few posters on here simply cant address an issue without first putting the party bias glasses on. They slip into the politicians trick of old rhetoric and bluffaw! The more people posting about the issues of the day and giving their own honest opinion the better. But you tend to give other peoples opinion?

 

Cheap shot I give my own, ask others and look up issues that I dont have all the facts on. I personally think other informed opinions add to the discussion.

 

 

Im one of the few Tories on here "out of the closet" so of course my views will be in the minority to the younger more radical posters. However I come at the argument from an honest personal opinion first. So finally, FINALLY you admit bias

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry731449

 

You might remember this post from April where I said I was a dyed in the wool Tory. But hey, dont let facts get in the way.

[NJS 4030]

The difference they had to "fiddle" then. Now they dont need to fiddle.

 

No - He had to avoid all of the "encouragements" that were introduced like Job Start and Job club which have continued in various forms and have actually been added to with Job Cnetre Plus stuff - the difference now is experience - we now have second or third generation "professional" scroungers who can beat any system they come up. This is of course a pisser but the amount it would cost to police properly and the damage it would cause genuine claimants probably outweighs the gains - short of a few examples being made which I wouldn't object to.

 

 

The difference they had to "fiddle" then. Now they dont need to fiddle.

Personally I've never heard of anyone in this country starving other than child abuse. and yes their is an alternative to paying scoungers with five kids £36,000 a year....Its called reducing the benefits to a level that makes the alternative, work, a good option.

 

It's a glib reply - there are only 500k vancancies in the UK which I would presume would either be unobtainable to the parents or would pay a lot less than an amount on which a large family could live. Again would you force them to work for a wage which would mean third world lifestyles? If they can't get work would you sleep easily if the family's benefits were reduced to a level where they say had to raid bins?

 

What would be the level of benefit for a family with 5 kids that would make you happy - £100 pw?

 

 

Benefits have doubled under Labour since 1997. Whether it is by new legislation or increases in the budget is immaterial, its still plain wrong.

 

If this means that people who lose their jobs and are unemployed for a shortish/medium time (the vast majority of claimants) can actually survive then I don't begrudge it. I'd also say an increase in "Income" over 13 years is quite reasonable.

 

 

 

Benefits should be a safety net, not a way of life.

 

 

Undoubtedly - sadly for 30 years now the country has been setup to run that way - unless you can magic up 2 or 3 million jobs, it isn't going to change.

[Renton 18287]

Im one of the few Tories on here "out of the closet" so of course my views will be in the minority to the younger more radical posters. However I come at the argument from an honest personal opinion first. So finally, FINALLY you admit bias

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry731449

 

You might remember this post from April where I said I was a dyed in the wool Tory. But hey, dont let facts get in the way.

 

 

Let me get this straight CT, are you admitting you are, like me, biased, or are you suggesting the fact that you are a 'dyed in the wool' tory does not affect your personal opinion?

[Christmas Tree 4005]

The difference they had to "fiddle" then. Now they dont need to fiddle.

Personally I've never heard of anyone in this country starving other than child abuse. and yes their is an alternative to paying scoungers with five kids £36,000 a year....Its called reducing the benefits to a level that makes the alternative, work, a good option.

 

It's a glib reply - there are only 500k vancancies in the UK which I would presume would either be unobtainable to the parents or would pay a lot less than an amount on which a large family could live. Again would you force them to work for a wage which would mean third world lifestyles? If they can't get work would you sleep easily if the family's benefits were reduced to a level where they say had to raid bins?

 

Its pretty hard to even start to think about a sensible reply when you argue like that. Bizzare.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Im one of the few Tories on here "out of the closet" so of course my views will be in the minority to the younger more radical posters. However I come at the argument from an honest personal opinion first. So finally, FINALLY you admit bias

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry731449

 

You might remember this post from April where I said I was a dyed in the wool Tory. But hey, dont let facts get in the way.

 

 

Let me get this straight CT, are you admitting you are, like me, biased, or are you suggesting the fact that you are a 'dyed in the wool' tory does not affect your personal opinion?

 

Im saying that I dont let my political tilting get in the way of discussing policy details. I have said this to you on numerous occasions but you dont seem to comprehend it.

 

Even Tory and Labour back benchers dont agree with everything their partys say or do, just because their in that party.

 

Going back to the original Targets conversation, I started by asking for your inside opinion, NOT spouting that it was definitely the right idea.

 

Nothing wrong with bias but when Newcastle get thumped five nil off Liverpool, I dont claim we were the better side.

[NJS 4030]

The difference they had to "fiddle" then. Now they dont need to fiddle.

Personally I've never heard of anyone in this country starving other than child abuse. and yes their is an alternative to paying scoungers with five kids £36,000 a year....Its called reducing the benefits to a level that makes the alternative, work, a good option.

 

It's a glib reply - there are only 500k vancancies in the UK which I would presume would either be unobtainable to the parents or would pay a lot less than an amount on which a large family could live. Again would you force them to work for a wage which would mean third world lifestyles? If they can't get work would you sleep easily if the family's benefits were reduced to a level where they say had to raid bins?

 

Its pretty hard to even start to think about a sensible reply when you argue like that. Bizzare.

 

It's a serious question to someone who would like to see benefits reduced - how much do you think it costs to provide for a family of 5 kids?

 

Remember in the work scenario they would have to pay rent/mortgage/bills.

 

If not in work then we're just talking about food - unforunately the vicious circle is that low income means shit food = unhealthy kids - are you happy with that?

 

What do you think should do in your world where they have a smaller amount and they run out of money 2 days before giro day?

 

You would end up with either dependence on friends, dependence on charity or dependence on crime - which do you prefer?

[Guest alex]

The difference they had to "fiddle" then. Now they dont need to fiddle.

Personally I've never heard of anyone in this country starving other than child abuse. and yes their is an alternative to paying scoungers with five kids £36,000 a year....Its called reducing the benefits to a level that makes the alternative, work, a good option.

 

It's a glib reply - there are only 500k vancancies in the UK which I would presume would either be unobtainable to the parents or would pay a lot less than an amount on which a large family could live. Again would you force them to work for a wage which would mean third world lifestyles? If they can't get work would you sleep easily if the family's benefits were reduced to a level where they say had to raid bins?

 

Its pretty hard to even start to think about a sensible reply when you argue like that. Bizzare.

 

It's a serious question to someone who would like to see benefits reduced - how much do you think it costs to provide for a family of 5 kids?

 

Remember in the work scenario they would have to pay rent/mortgage/bills.

 

If not in work then we're just talking about food - unforunately the vicious circle is that low income means shit food = unhealthy kids - are you happy with that?

 

What do you think should do in your world where they have a smaller amount and they run out of money 2 days before giro day?

 

You would end up with either dependence on friends, dependence on charity or dependence on crime - which do you prefer?

While I genuinely pity the kids in such a scenario I think it's a fucking massive liberty having that many kids when you can't afford to provide for them. And plenty people do that - start having kids at 15-16, and keep going without ever having a job. I don't know what the answer is but I think the current system actually encourages that sort of behaviour. It's a free ticket to housing, benefits, etc. We have to stop incentivising that sort of behaviour. For the sake of society and, ultimately, the planet's resources.

[NJS 4030]

While I genuinely pity the kids in such a scenario I think it's a fucking massive liberty having that many kids when you can't afford to provide for them. And plenty people do that - start having kids at 15-16, and keep going without ever having a job. I don't know what the answer is but I think the current system actually encourages that sort of behaviour. It's a free ticket to housing, benefits, etc. We have to stop incentivising that sort of behaviour. For the sake of society and, ultimately, the planet's resources.

 

One of the few right wing/Sci-fi ideas I subscribe to as I've said before is global sterilisation with the antidote on licence - probably a few years away practically as well as ethically.

 

As you say any "punishment" at the monent takes it out on the kids rather than the breeders - maybe the Victorians had it right with the workhouses.

[Renton 18287]

Im one of the few Tories on here "out of the closet" so of course my views will be in the minority to the younger more radical posters. However I come at the argument from an honest personal opinion first. So finally, FINALLY you admit bias

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry731449

 

You might remember this post from April where I said I was a dyed in the wool Tory. But hey, dont let facts get in the way.

 

 

Let me get this straight CT, are you admitting you are, like me, biased, or are you suggesting the fact that you are a 'dyed in the wool' tory does not affect your personal opinion?

 

Im saying that I dont let my political tilting get in the way of discussing policy details. I have said this to you on numerous occasions but you dont seem to comprehend it.

 

Even Tory and Labour back benchers dont agree with everything their partys say or do, just because their in that party.

 

Going back to the original Targets conversation, I started by asking for your inside opinion, NOT spouting that it was definitely the right idea.

 

Nothing wrong with bias but when Newcastle get thumped five nil off Liverpool, I dont claim we were the better side.

 

Well, either you are deluded, or you don't understand what bias is. Your political outlook will naturally temper any political discussion, how could it be any other way? You are no different to me in this respect apart from the fact you can't see it. Cherry picking wordage from the internet to support your viewpoint does not make you neutral with respect to this.

 

For the record, I have disagreed with many Labour policies, to the extent I nearly didn't vote for them the election before last. If you look back to pre-CT times on here, you would find me disagreeing with just about all their foreign policy with regard to the Middle East, and against identity cards. I also disagreed with Blair's educational policies. Problem was, at that time, the Conservatives were pretty much right behind the same policies.