Hockey_saint

It is funny when the same prime minister who led essentially a witch hunt against Carr now appears to think when he does it, it's a "private family matter" what a hypocrite.

He means, alongside the eye scan, you have your finger prints taken. It's not too bad now actually, before you needed a green card stapled into your passport (even for visa-free travel.) The airline forgot to take mine away when I flew from LA to NZ and the next time I had to apply for a US work visa at the London embassy (after waiting for about FIVE hours) I was led into a little room, clearly for questioning as an overstayer...That was until they noticed the NZ and Australian stamps next to my passport photo dated 2 weeks after I entered the US but it looked a bit hairy for a while.

Nice to see Edward Snowden popping up to make a quick dig too.

I hope they do. But to be fair, what would be gained out of it? IDS has already stated quite clearly, until he was stopped by his own backbenchers....(this doesn't make him innocent) that the chancellor wanted to use money to care for the weakest in society as a "cashcow" to fund tax cuts for the richest. So considering his attempted treatment of his own needy, why should this be any different? "austerity in a *caring* society" indeed. I think the problem is this country is far too gone with Thatcherism to return and that was my issue above "what about us workers who pay for it in our taxes!!!" total '80's greed is good attitude that's unfortunately common today

Seems pretty clear to everyone with such a vacuous response there that it is true.

Are we not?

I'll be honest, after Hoddle, Potch, the attempted Spiderman tap-up and the Toby screwjob last year; I don't feel as bad about this result as I should. Am I the only one that feels slightly better that we've probably ruined Spurs' chances of the title? Small things I suppose.

Wasn't it Gandhi that, when visiting the slums of London before the war who suggested that Britain should consider treating it's own poor before interfering abroad? Does make you mad though. So as Whitey Grandad says, he doesn't want working taxpayers to pay for the weakest in society...surely this is worse? It's not even our society. Also, before anyone harks in, this isn't against a left-wing opinion as, for example, the Labour party were totally against the EU until they realised it offered better worker's rights than what Thatcher was offering so believing it right and proper to help the poorest in our society (and not use the money we use to support them as a cash cow to fund rich people's tax cuts) as opposed to someone else's is perfectly acceptable.

I'm kinda warming to Peter Hitchens there. Problem is that most of the current government are children of Thatcher and see her as some kind of goddess who could do no wrong. The appear to forget about the late 80's where her own party were lining up to stab her in the back and fall in on each other like they are now.

You'll get no argument from me there except that it may have been different if the EU wasn't blocked from stopping incredible amounts of Chinese steel into Europe by those two lovely gentlemen currently residing at numbers 10 and 11. It is absolutely losing money by the bucket load and if you consider China produced more steel in one day last year than the UK have, it's an issue but it's never good to lose so many jobs.

Yet people still complain "they're all the same" but when an alternative to quasi-conservatism, they lose their minds. The media in this country is indeed very clever.

A Conservative government and the loss of British Industry? That's never happened before. Poor Dave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ac3S5jtG4 Definitely something no saints fan that was about then will ever forget. Two football geniuses probably having a kick about up in heaven right now. RIP Bally and Cryuff.

I suppose, in a way he would be good for Labour voters as it would show just how nasty the right can be and then ram it down their throats for as long as he was in charge but just like how the tories like suggesting about Labour and the global economic downturn; there probably wont be anything left of the country.

To think, there are still a lot of tories tipping Osbourne as their next leader. Way to go returning to the Nasty Party. A lib dem friend of mine just suggested he could see a lot of similarities between him and Brown; I don't think he's wrong.

Are you including our very own Royston Smith in that 2015 intake? because if you are, you are VERY VERY wrong....I did like that lady doctor tory MP who spoke in the commons before the vote and called them absolutely heartless and certainly not "managing austerity in a caring society". Plus, you can call IDS's turn of the century era a "senior moment" but you know it was very similar to the end of Thatcher's reign right? Something Osbourne and Cameron need to realise as they continually try to emulate her.

Firstly Angelman, I know he was, he spent years in opposition complaining about all the forms he had to fill in for it. It's been brought up at PMQ's before and he gets....lets just say a little irate. But his child is that, a child and he was HIS and his wife's responsibility and they are both millionaires (she has more than he does...she's an Astor)...but to say "oh, if anyone needs it they should claim" is frankly a bit awful. So a millionaire should claim in work benefits as well should they? I'm sorry but this bypasses the fact that it IS for disabled people in financial need and again, if everyone with a few million in the bank did it then it would be no surprise too many people are claiming.

Yeah you should be right. But I don't think that's the case for the lowest income earners and herein is the problem. Should there be some sort of means testing to say "are you at a considerable financial disadvantage having a disabled child? and would your income drop below a certain figure?" Problem in my eyes is that those who claim it and are not really suffering "financial hardship" because of their disability and are only adding to the figures and money spent on it. Rightly or wrongly, if they are disabled enough and need assistance, ok, they should get it but the vast majority of people that claim it cannot afford these extra costs so it's kinda like all the rich kids moving into a poor neighbourhood....it's going to make it trickier for the poor ones already living there.

Come on, you know who the biggest example of rich people claiming DLA is right? David Cameron. He claimed DLA for his son and he's a multi-millionaire. (I also think he was probably stupid enough to think that a lot of people who do have as much money as him so they could afford £30 taken from them every week.)....But you are right, it's a shame Labour can't absolutely take advantage of this.

Add to that (and I am in no way, shape or form a conservative Angelman) they look at the employment stats of those on DLA now compared to back in the early 90's, which went from something like 85% to now down to about 30% and thought "hello, those claiming DLA are using it as an income whilst choosing not to work" which could or could not be right. Either way, it certainly wasn't "compassionate conservatism".

I think this was strategically timed as well though to cause maximum damage to George Osborne. Think about it, Labour have taken a slight lead in the opinion polls (I know, after last election that means bugger all), the back benchers are crapping themselves because, even though they all viciously voted for this (even our dear Royston Smith who doesn't vote for anything) and are rebelling and it shows how out of touch and heartless this chancellor is before his leadership bid. I think I need some popcorn. Oh but have you seen call me Dave's letter in response? (when in political history has one been written in reply so fast?) "Dear Iain, Thank you for your letter this evening. We are all very proud of the welfare reforms which this government has delivered over the last six years, and in which you have played an important part. As a government, we have done a huge amount to get people into work, reduce unemployment and promote social justice. There are now more people in work than ever before in our country’s history, with 2.4 million more jobs created since 2010. I regret that you have chosen to step down from the government at this moment. Together we designed the personal independence payment to support the most vulnerable and to give disabled people more independence. We all agreed that the increased resources being spent on disabled people should be properly managed and focused on those who need it most. That is why we collectively agreed – you, No 10 and the Treasury – proposals which you and your Department then announced a week ago. Today we agreed not to proceed with the policies in their current form and instead to work together to get these policies right over the coming months. In the light of this, I am puzzled and disappointed that you have chosen to resign. You leave the government with my thanks and best wishes. While we are on different sides in the vital debate about the future of Britain’s relations with Europe, the government will, of course, continue with its policy of welfare reform, matched by our commitment to social justice, to improving the life chances of the most disadvantaged people in our country, and to ensuring that those who most need help and protection continue to receive it. Yours, David" Brilliant. Just brilliant " oh but Iain, I thought smashing the disabled and giving that money to the people who'll vote for us was a spiffing idea that we all agreed to?"

Good, but he's got plenty of the same to replace and do the same job to please people who moan about immigration, money going to people on benefits and how Labour "ruined the economy". I do love how at the end of his resignation letter, whilst questioning cuts to the poor while keeping luxuries for wealthy pensioners, he, supposedly the arch tory questions "are we really all in this together?" what do you say about that right wingers?

In other words, they've realised that the public, outside of their Bulington/House of commons bubble are absolutely disgusted by this and would probably show this by votes. But they'll probably try to claim it was their idea, kinda like the way they had to back down on tax credits.

Again, that's a very poor, quasi-insult. So again, you think it's totally fine do you? I live in a world where I would expect my hard earned taxes would go towards things like the NHS, fire service and education. What I don't expect is the money I pay in to go to private businesses who's only interest is the money they can make for their shareholders. You've given me no reason why your world of greed and selfishness in better than the one this country chose after growing tired of wars brought about by the very class who are currently espousing wholesale privatisation of pretty much everything. Do you honestly think if all these government workers lost their jobs, you'd pay any less tax? If you do, well...you're the one living in cloud cuckoo land. Austerity in a "caring society" eh? Even in the Torygraph. I think the second photo for me sums up everything wrong for me Whitey Grandad. I agree though, this world isn't a nice place full of caring sharing people but I'd just prefer not to add myself in the list of those that are in it for themselves. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12197202/Targeting-disabled-people-is-woeful-politics.html?sf22745738=1

Oh dear, did that come off as me calling you a scumbag? wasn't my intention as you've already said you don't agree with the manner in which it's done....as opposed to blindly calling everyone affected by these cuts as a drain on the taxes you pay, which frankly, I find a disgusting statement for a supposedly caring society. I meant the last bit to Whitey Grandad...But you are right, it was over-the-top please excuse me. Finally, I think any party that suggests the things they have are scumbags...If Labour or the Libs did...I would them too. I would like to hear from Whitey Grandad how Labour would be "much worse" though because as it stands, our current government are preparing what seems to be a rundown exercise in most sectors in prep for selling them off to big business. Healthcare, Local authorities, services, education they all seem ripe for the picking and the ONLY thing anyone can put this down to is doctrine so nope, I utterly disagree...how much worse could it be than that?