Could you live on £57 a week?

[Saint86]

The thing is... SOME people have all the benefits that someone in a poorer country doesn't have.... yet they take their education for granted, take the state for granted, drop out of school, go unemployed, smoke, drink, pop out babies they can't afford because they find other inbreds to "naughty cuddle" with... and the rest of us pay for their designer sports gear and satellite tv.

 

Now, personally. The ones that are quite happy to live like this (not the countless thousands who want but can not get a job*) I would drop kick them out of the country, instead of giving aid money, why don't we make them our aid donation... they can go and do x months service abroad, constituting our aid budget, which we can better spend elsewhere. It might actually teach them what they have got as well, plus showing them what a difference they can make in life.. if after that they still fail... then make them work as toilet cleaners etc part time until they get a job they want....

[CB Saint]

The thing is... SOME people have all the benefits that someone in a poorer country doesn't have.... yet they take their education for granted, take the state for granted, drop out of school, go unemployed, smoke, drink, pop out babies they can't afford because they find other inbreds to "naughty cuddle" with... and the rest of us pay for their designer sports gear and satellite tv.

 

Now, personally. The ones that are quite happy to live like this (not the countless thousands who want but can not get a job*) I would drop kick them out of the country, instead of giving aid money, why don't we make them our aid donation... they can go and do x months service abroad, constituting our aid budget, which we can better spend elsewhere. It might actually teach them what they have got as well, plus showing them what a difference they can make in life.. if after that they still fail... then make them work as toilet cleaners etc part time until they get a job they want....

 

Wishful thinking, you are not allowed to make clean graffiti in this country, let alone ship em out. We can't get rid of that murderous git qatada, FFs.

[Sour Mash]

Problem is you need more than just food to live a half decent standard of living in this country. If you are looking for work you will need a phone, ideally an internet connection. plus there's clothes, travel, toiletries etc.

 

I expect I could just about survive if I had to but having some out-of-touch rich tory ***t say he could I find offensive.

So you agree he is right, but you don't think he should say it? Would it be better coming from a Champagne Socialist?

[Lord Duckhunter]

The simple fact is that enough money is collected in tax to look after the very poorest and most needy in this country. The reason people have to live on this pathetic amount is that the money is redistributed too thinly. People are receiving payments from the state who don't need it. Winter fuel allowence for millionaires, expats being an easy example. But what about child benefit, is that not a state handout? Me and mrs duck both work and both earn above the average wage, yet receive £140 odd in benefit each month solely because we have children, whilst some poor sod has to live on £50 a week. Is that right? If you were designing a welfare state now I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be handing out benefits to people with over 50k combined income, in pretty sure expats living in Spain wouldn't get cold weather payments or millionaires get free tv licences.

 

We have a welfare state that pays people in genuine need a pittance so that it can continue to look after people who should be looking after themselves. Until we have a fundamental debate about who exactly the state should be helping and for how long, we will always have people on **** poor money, because that's all we can afford.

[trousers]

The simple fact is that enough money is collected in tax to look after the very poorest and most needy in this country. The reason people have to live on this pathetic amount is that the money is redistributed too thinly. People are receiving payments from the state who don't need it. Winter fuel allowence for millionaires, expats being an easy example. But what about child benefit, is that not a state handout? Me and mrs duck both work and both earn above the average wage, yet receive £140 odd in benefit each month solely because we have children, whilst some poor sod has to live on £50 a week. Is that right? If you were designing a welfare state now I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be handing out benefits to people with over 50k combined income, in pretty sure expats living in Spain wouldn't get cold weather payments or millionaires get free tv licences.

 

We have a welfare state that pays people in genuine need a pittance so that it can continue to look after people who should be looking after themselves. Until we have a fundamental debate about who exactly the state should be helping and for how long, we will always have people on **** poor money, because that's all we can afford.

 

^This

[pap]

Ricky Tomlinson's name is on a piece in the Guardian this morning.

 

10 lies we're told about the welfare state.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare

[Tokyo-Saint]

Looks like there are a few lies about the lies in there Pap. It's about as even handed as the Mail, just the over side of the coin. What happened to balanced journalism? Was it just too boring to get readers?

[CB Saint]

This is what is currently irritating me. Yet another commentator spouting on about how wrong all the cuts, reforms etc are but no mention anywhere about how to resolve the problems that we face. Forget the refrain that we need to spend to get growth, no one knows if that will work, however everyone one knows that it will definitely lead to more debt

 

By all means attack the tax avoiders, however £120bn? I am willing to bet everything I own, that if the correct measures were put into place to tackle tax avoidance, it would not yield up £120bn.

 

You could tackle this in the form of one annual return. At the start of the year, everyone completes a form and gives it to their employers (benefit office if out of work) on it would declare kids, age ability etc. your allowances are the distributed through a tax code. You would get additional tax rebates monthly if your income was insufficient to attract tax. That way you would be able to nobble benefits for the high earners.

 

On the subject of rich oldies getting freebies, surely if their income is in higher rate, they have to complete a tax return anyway. Claw back the benefits there. My parents haven't even been in the country long enough this year to need to use the winter fuel benefit, unless mum buying a new beach wardrobe counts.

[CB Saint]

Looks like there are a few lies about the lies in there Pap. It's about as even handed as the Mail, just the over side of the coin. What happened to balanced journalism? Was it just too boring to get readers?

 

are two lies like a double negative and therefore true?

[trousers]

Ricky Tomlinson's name is on a piece in the Guardian this morning.

 

10 lies we're told about the welfare state.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare

 

Given Labour pledged to cut £8 for every £9 the Tories pledged to cut from state expenditure, maybe Ricky could explain what welfare and services they would have chopped so we have something to compare against in the interests of a balanced discussion...?

 

[trousers]

This is what is currently irritating me. Yet another commentator spouting on about how wrong all the cuts, reforms etc are but no mention anywhere about how to resolve the problems that we face. Forget the refrain that we need to spend to get growth, no one knows if that will work, however everyone one knows that it will definitely lead to more debt

 

By all means attack the tax avoiders, however £120bn? I am willing to bet everything I own, that if the correct measures were put into place to tackle tax avoidance, it would not yield up £120bn.

 

Tomlinson, like all career Tory bashers, also glosses over the fact that Labour were in power for 13 years and chose to do sod all about plugging these "millionaire tax avoiding loopholes", not forgetting that Labour also gave "millionaires" a 10% tax break for best part of 13 years too. (Yes, I know I've broken one of the thought police rules there by harking back to the past when we should be sweeping all that's gone before us under the carpet - unless its bad historical Tory stuff of course...)

 

I'd be happy to listen to alternative views on how to tackle the current problems but all you get is anti-Tory vitriol because that plays to their captive audience better than admitting that its a cross party issue.

Edited 3 April, 2013 by trousers

[pap]

Oi, right wingers?

 

What was wrong with my rent control idea?

 

Oh, that's right. We're not allowed to touch that part of policy; along with tons of other "untouchable" areas of policy that would save the country billions.

 

If there were genuinely no options, you might have the beginnings of a point. Look at all of you. "Wah, it's unfixable!". "Wah, nothing can be done!". Yes it can. Either you can't think of it or our politicians won't do it.

 

It's a f**king good job Nazism happened when it did. With the defeatniks seemingly forming the bulk of this country, we wouldn't have stood a chance today.

[trousers]

Oi, right wingers?

 

What was wrong with my rent control idea?

 

Oh, that's right. We're not allowed to touch that part of policy; along with tons of other "untouchable" areas of policy that would save the country billions.

 

If there were genuinely no options, you might have the beginnings of a point. Look at all of you. "Wah, it's unfixable!". "Wah, nothing can be done!". Yes it can. Either you can't think of it or our politicians won't do it.

 

It's a f**king good job Nazism happened when it did. With the defeatniks seemingly forming the bulk of this country, we wouldn't have stood a chance today.

 

Stop dressing decent alternative ideas in gratuitous anti-Tory vitriol and I'll concede its a decent proposal

 

What other private enterprise should we curb while we're at it?

[FarehamRed]

By all means attack the tax avoiders, however £120bn? I am willing to bet everything I own, that if the correct measures were put into place to tackle tax avoidance, it would not yield up £120bn.

 

The welfare cuts add up to around £2.5bn, so even if they collected half the avoided tax it would negate the need to cut welfare and give the country some real options.

 

The top 1% of earners pocket 10p in every pound of income paid in Britain, while the poorest 50% take home about 18p of every pound between them. I'm not against people being rich, there just has to be a balance and the gap between rich and poor is growing out of all proportion. It can/should be narrowed with some sensible redistribution.

[trousers]

The welfare cuts add up to around £2.5bn, so even if they collected half the avoided tax it would negate the need to cut welfare and give the country some real options.

 

The top 1% of earners pocket 10p in every pound of income paid in Britain, while the poorest 50% take home about 18p of every pound between them. I'm not against people being rich, there just has to be a balance and the gap between rich and poor is growing out of all proportion. It can/should be narrowed with some sensible redistribution.

 

Whataboutery alert!

 

Shame the previous government didn't think of that idea while they allowed the gap between rich and poor to grow at its greatest rate...

[pap]

Stop dressing decent alternative ideas in gratuitous anti-Tory vitriol and I'll concede its a decent proposal

 

What other private enterprise should we curb while we're at it?

 

My dissatisfaction with the spinelessness of politicians extends to all parties.

 

I'm not sure that every idea has to be about curbing enterprise.

 

There are apparently 2M people smoking weed in this country. Instead of making money from that, we're spending money to stop them from doing it. And failing.

[trousers]

My dissatisfaction with the spinelessness of politicians extends to all parties.

 

Apologies - my comment should have been made more as a generalisation. It was more geared at some of my facebook "friends" who will delight in a story about a Tory that supposedly argued the toss about paying a first class train fare yet not a boo from a goose when a non-Tory is caught with their pants down.

[trousers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2302559/Welfare-reform-isnt-hurting-poor-people-Its-trying-make-richer.html

 

"One Guardian comment piece called the welfare reforms ‘savage’, ‘cruel’ and — worst of all — ‘imported from the U.S.’ Another declared matter-of-factly that ‘the bedroom tax’ was ‘evidence that this government is either careless or actively cruel’.

 

Cruel, eh? By how much, then, do you suppose the welfare budget is being cut? Twenty per cent? Thirty? In fact, it is being slightly increased.

 

The total amount we spend on social protection currently stands at its highest ever: £220billion in 2012. To give you an idea of how much that is, it more than soaks up all the revenue from income tax, council tax and business rates combined.

 

What the Government’s critics mean by ‘savage cuts’ is that welfare spending will increase very slightly this year.

 

The Left’s language is now so twisted that words have lost their ordinary meanings. The ‘bedroom tax’ is in fact a re-allocation of housing benefit away from people with spare rooms towards people without. Whatever else we call it, it’s not a tax. Yet the reduction in top-rate tax — which really is a tax — is called ‘writing a cheque to millionaires’.

 

Liam Byrne, the former Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, even has the gall to describe the 45p top rate of tax as ‘a bonanza for the rich’. But what was the rate during all but the final month of Labour’s 13 years in office? Forty per cent.

 

Ponder the truly eye-popping fact that, during the lifetime of the Labour government, welfare spending rose by 60 per cent during an economic boom.

 

What the Left-wing media means by ‘cuts’ is really ‘slowing the rate of increase’. As Mr Duncan Smith, the minister in charge, put it yesterday: ‘All those on benefits will see cash increases in every year of the Parliament.’

This is in marked contrast to what is happening in several eurozone countries, such as Ireland and Spain, where actual cuts — in the sense of handing out less money than before — have been enacted.

Many traditional Labour supporters will have more sympathy with Mr Duncan Smith than with the alarmists who speak for their party. They know that, last year, benefits rose three times faster than salaries. They don’t see why, when pay is rising by one per cent on average, working-age benefits should go up faster.

"

Edited 3 April, 2013 by trousers

[pap]

Apologies - my comment should have been made more as a generalisation. It was more geared at some of my facebook "friends" who will delight in a story about a Tory that supposedly argued the toss about paying a first class train fare yet not a boo from a goose when a non-Tory is caught with their pants down.

 

Which unfortunately, sums up the attitude of many in politics.

 

You're treating the political makeup of this country like it's a team sport. You might as well make an impassioned case for Burger King over McDonalds, for all the good it does.

[trousers]

Which unfortunately, sums up the attitude of many in politics.

 

You're treating the political makeup of this country like it's a team sport. You might as well make an impassioned case for Burger King over McDonalds, for all the good it does.

 

Burger King's fries are nicer for a start

[Minty]

There are some really interesting and healthy debates to be had, and dare I say it, we can all learn a lot from different points of view on this and many other topics - but as you both say, it's the point-scoring, black-and-white, "Tory's are great/evil, Labour are evil/great!" standpoints that some take, and that the media inevitably have to pursue to please much of their readership, that degrade the quality of discussion, and the validity of the ideas that are often put forward from all sides.

[CB Saint]

Which unfortunately, sums up the attitude of many in politics.

 

You're treating the political makeup of this country like it's a team sport. You might as well make an impassioned case for Burger King over McDonalds, for all the good it does.

 

The only thing in McDonalds locker is the happy meal, oh and sausage and egg mcmuffins

[aintforever]

So you agree he is right, but you don't think he should say it? Would it be better coming from a Champagne Socialist?

 

I don't think he is right, I doubt he would have the faintest idea of what living on that amount would be like.

[saint1977]

There are some really interesting and healthy debates to be had, and dare I say it, we can all learn a lot from different points of view on this and many other topics - but as you both say, it's the point-scoring, black-and-white, "Tory's are great/evil, Labour are evil/great!" standpoints that some take, and that the media inevitably have to pursue to please much of their readership, that degrade the quality of discussion, and the validity of the ideas that are often put forward from all sides.

 

Totally agree Minty and sadly, this is why whatever happens re: Levinson, it won't make a great deal of difference. Until newspapers/media outlets become more objective and neutral and not puppets for political parties/elites/unions/far right organisations, the debate will be about rosettes and not how we can sort out some of the thorniest challenges - energy poverty, pensions, health, education, jobs - to benefit the majority of the public and to set reasonable expectations at each end of the social spectrum from individuals. Moreover, it would help if each person's or families circumstances were looked at in isolation rather than the crude labelling that occurs of social groups.

 

Take away the party politics and actually there are more good ideas on this thread than British Politics has come up with over the last 40 years!

[buctootim]

Forget the refrain that we need to spend to get growth, no one knows if that will work, however everyone one knows that it will definitely lead to more debt.

 

By all means attack the tax avoiders, however £120bn? I am willing to bet everything I own, that if the correct measures were put into place to tackle tax avoidance, it would not yield up £120bn.

 

Thats the whole point though - the budget deficit is so vast it cant be tackled by some budget cuts and going after tax avoidance. The cause of the budget deficit was economic slowdown and recession. The only way it will be resolved is by restarting economic growth, and all that the few billions being trimmed from budgets here and there are doing is perpetuating the recession.

 

Yes there is very little room for error and yes Gordon Brown should have paid down far more debt when the economy was booming, but we are where we are. Osbourne had a chance to stimulate the economy with some socially beneficial works which recycled nearly all the public expenditure back into the economy through less unemployment benefit, workers paying tax and spending in shops. What he should have done is classic Keynsian multiplier public building works (insulating houses, new houses and roads). Instead he was practically criminally negligent, stupid with his self interested chasing of a few votes.

 

All the pain of budget cuts has been and delayed economic growth has been for what? so Osbourne can blow the meagre savings made on crappy tax cuts on booze and petrol and subsisdise loans to reinflate the still vastly overpriced UK housing market. And its overpriced why?, um lack of supply and new house building.

[Clapham Saint]

Thats the whole point though - the budget deficit is so vast it cant be tackled by some budget cuts and going after tax avoidance. The cause of the budget deficit was economic slowdown and recession. The only way it will be resolved is by restarting economic growth, and all that the few billions being trimmed from budgets here and there are doing is perpetuating the recession. [/Quote]

 

Total balls. No it wasn't.

 

When Tony and Gordon first took over the the country was coming out of recession and they managed a surplus from 1998 to 2001 (whilst following the spending plans of the previous tory government). We have been running a defecit since 2002 - Well before the recession.

 

The recession, made the defecit worse but it certainly didn't cause it.

 

 

Yes there is very little room for error and yes Gordon Brown should have paid down far more debt when the economy was booming, but we are where we are. Osbourne had a chance to stimulate the economy with some socially beneficial works which recycled nearly all the public expenditure back into the economy through less unemployment benefit, workers paying tax and spending in shops. What he should have done is classic Keynsian multiplier public building works (insulating houses, new houses and roads). Instead he was practically criminally negligent, stupid with his self interested chasing of a few votes.

 

All the pain of budget cuts has been and delayed economic growth has been for what? so Osbourne can blow the meagre savings made on crappy tax cuts on booze and petrol and subsisdise loans to reinflate the still vastly overpriced UK housing market. And its overpriced why?, um lack of supply and new house building.

 

Again, he didn't repay a penny after 2001. When the economy was booming Gordon spent the increased revenues and then borrowed even more on top, further over inflating the bubble and making the inevitable crash even worse.

 

 

 

 

 

When the economy started to boom they not only spend the additional

[dingbattigger]

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/can-you-really-manage-on-%C2%A353-a-week--124043671.html

[pap]

Pilfered from the Guardian comments page:-

 

This is taken from a Guardian comments page:

 

” How to wage a war upon the poor.

Probably the most disgusting thing about this coalition has been their propaganda war against the most disadvantaged people in society. By the deliberate spreading of lies, they have facilitated a systematic assault upon the poor, the sick and the disabled. And they have knowingly misled the public for one simple reason, to enable them to totally dismantle the welfare state.

There are lies, damned lies, and then there are lying Tory bastards.

The welfare state has led to a ‘something for nothing’ culture?

It may be utterly repugnant to hear millionaire politicians who have never worked a day in their life telling us that they are ending the ‘something for nothing culture’, but it’s also utter ********. Only 2.5% of the total welfare budget of £200 billion actually goes on unemployment, whilst the vast majority of unemployed claimants have worked, and paid taxes, for years and are now on benefits due to redundancy, sickness, disability or having to care for someone. Millions more are receiving benefits due to poverty wages. The Welfare state is actually a massive state subsidy to business which enables it to pay poverty wages and charge exorbitant rents.

Living on benefits is a lifestyle choice?

Only 0.1% of benefit claimants who have claimed for 10 years or more are actually unemployed. Less than 5,000 people, out of over 9 million 16-64 year olds who don’t work, have been on Job Seekers Allowance for more than 5 years. Less than 0.1% of the 20 million working age households have 2 generations that have never had a permanent job. Despite strenuous efforts, researchers have been unable to find any families where three generations have never worked.

People won’t work because benefits are too high?

In 1971, JSA equalled 20.9% of the average wage. Today, it is worth 10.9%. These people are living in poverty. There are 8.5 million people receiving benefits in this country. There are more people IN WORK who get benefits than not working. The majority of all housing benefit claimants are IN WORK. 6.1 million people classed as living in poverty are from households IN WORK.

People on housing benefit live in mansions?

Our newspapers continuously bombard us with these stories. There are around five million claimants of Housing Benefit; of which there were five families who received over £100,000 per year, all living in central London. The average award of Housing Benefit is approximately £85 a week. Only 3% of families received more than £10,000 a year support, and 0.04% received more than £30,000 a year. And no-one ever mentions that housing benefit goes straight to the Landlord and not the claimant.

And those large families screwing the taxpayer? There are around 130 families with 10 children and only 10 families with 12 children IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY who are on benefits.

Benefit cheats are bankrupting the country?

Benefit fraud amounts to about £1.5 billion a year, less than 1% of the entire budget. To put this in perspective, the bank bailout equalled 1,000 years of benefit fraud. Meanwhile, £1.3 billion gets underpaid each year and a further £16 billion goes UNCLAIMED every year.

We can no longer afford the welfare state?

So who is really bankrupting the country? Well, the richest 1,000 people now possess £414 billion between them, a sum more than three times the size of the entire UK budget deficit. The richest 1% of the population are estimated to possess wealth of about £1 trillion. The richest 10% control wealth of about £4 trillion. The Quantitative Easing programme has increased the personal wealth of the UK’s richest 20% by enough to pay for Job Seeker’s Allowance for the next 100 years.

The people of this country are being shafted, but instead of the blame being directed at the real culprits, the rich, it is being aimed at the most vulnerable, the poor, with our own Government shamelessly leading the way.

And every one who believes their bull**** should hang their heads in shame.”

 

There’s a storm coming…

 

Rich Hammond 01/04/13

[trousers]

Pilfered from the Guardian comments page:-

 

We can no longer afford the welfare state?

So who is really bankrupting the country? Well, the richest 1,000 people now possess £414 billion between them, a sum more than three times the size of the entire UK budget deficit. The richest 1% of the population are estimated to possess wealth of about £1 trillion. The richest 10% control wealth of about £4 trillion. The Quantitative Easing programme has increased the personal wealth of the UK’s richest 20% by enough to pay for Job Seeker’s Allowance for the next 100 years.

 

A pat on the back to that chap for pointing out the "lies" but like most commentators on the situation he fails to articulate what the alternatives were/are.

 

What percentage of the "£4 trillion" does he think we should claw back from the richest 10% and how does he suggest doing that? (in practical rather than ideological terms)

 

Is he also happy that the welfare budget ballooned by 60% under the previous government and that the unscrupulous work of the nasty Tories will only rebalance things (percentage wise) back to the latter years of the Labour government rather than the % levels that Labour inherited in 1997.

 

As I've said before, I happy to listen to the rants of the anti-Tory brigade, and acknowledge that the Tories are quite often bad at turning sensible ideas into reality, but only if those doing the ranting (a) explain the services and benefits that a Labour government would have cut over the last 3 years (i.e. £8 of cuts for every £9 of Tory cuts) and (b) explain how they would rebalance the gap between the richest and poorest - a gap that just happened to grow at its largest rate between 1997 and 2010...

[pap]

A pat on the back to that chap for pointing out the "lies" but like most commentators on the situation he fails to articulate what the alternatives were/are.

 

What percentage of the "£4 trillion" does he think we should claw back from the richest 10% and how does he suggest doing that? (in practical rather than ideological terms)

 

Is he also happy that the welfare budget ballooned by 60% under the previous government and that the unscrupulous work of the nasty Tories will only rebalance things (percentage wise) back to the latter years of the Labour government rather than the % levels that Labour inherited in 1997.

 

As I've said before, I happy to listen to the rants of the anti-Tory brigade, and acknowledge that the Tories are quite often bad at turning sensible ideas into reality, but only if those doing the ranting (a) explain the services and benefits that a Labour government would have cut over the last 3 years (i.e. £8 of cuts for every £9 of Tory cuts) and (b) explain how they would rebalance the gap between the richest and poorest - a gap that just happened to grow at its largest rate between 1997 and 2010...

 

Why should someone complaining about the current government have to act as a cheerleader for the Labour Party?

 

More specifically, what is the point in discussing radical solutions to our current issues if you pull it back to what the Labour Party will do?

[trousers]

Why should someone complaining about the current government have to act as a cheerleader for the Labour Party?

 

More specifically, what is the point in discussing radical solutions to our current issues if you pull it back to what the Labour Party will do?

 

Aren't the Labour Party the only alternative to what's currently happening? I think its reasonable to look at the one and only alternative when the current approach isn't working. That's simple problem/solution analysis, isn't it?

 

My job: Computer software isn't working...either fix it or evaluate an alternative solution.

[pap]

Aren't the Labour Party the only alternative to what's currently happening? I think its reasonable to look at the one and only alternative when the current approach isn't working. That's simple problem/solution analysis, isn't it?

 

My job: Computer software isn't working...either fix it or evaluate an alternative solution.

 

They're the only party that stands a chance of unseating the current government under first past the post.

 

They are not the only alternative. My personal belief is that true change will only come about when people are shaken out of their apathy. I already see that happening and it's a direct consequence of coalition policy. Might be a little premature to speak of revolution, but as I've said before - their policy has been near universal in that it negatively affects almost everyone.

 

More people are realising the whole thing is a con. That the financial services industry we prize so much is nothing more than a casino, that our captains of industry fcked it all up and Joe Public is carrying the can.

 

The privatisation agenda is also wholly obvious.

 

Despite what you might think about the last Labour government, Britain didn't swing to the left when they come in. I suppose "nice" people and virtues were more highly praised, but it was a right wing government in all but name. We'll see whether the influx of new members into the Labour Party changes its character, but the last lot didn't do anything radical in terms of wealth distribution. They just borrowed a load of money and doled it out.

 

The day is coming when socialist policies won't be funded by borrowing, but by brave political decisions. The penny will finally click that we don't have to live this way, that countries like Italy and Greece don't have to sacrifice democracy to be part of the financial system. When you've got a government in that is brave enough to hoover up all that spare cash or legislate on behalf of the many, then we can talk about alternatives. Whether the Labour Party develops the balls to do that, I don't know.

[trousers]

Despite what you might think about the last Labour government, Britain didn't swing to the left when they come in.

 

They still emptied the public purse, and borrowed when that run out, like a good old fashioned Labour government...

[trousers]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/04/welfare-reform-is-this-governments-most-difficult-but-most-popular-policy/

 

The image of IDS as a callous “toff” hellbent on whipping the poor into submission is in any case a laughable caricature.

 

Few British politicians – and no Conservative ministers – have thought longer or more deeply about welfare reform. His answers may prove mistaken but he cannot sensibly be accused of failing to address the question.Despite the hysterical reaction to this week’s benefit changes, no-one actually proposes eliminating the safety net.

 

The Treasury might wish to sharply reduce spending on social protection but, including pensions, the government will still spend more than £220 billion on welfare payments of one kind or another this year. The overall welfare bill is not falling. Indeed, IDS has long argued that some payments might, at least in the short term, need to rise to help move claimants from welfare into work.

Moreover, despite what the BBC, Guardian and other bastions of conventional, left-wing opinion might have you believe, the government’s welfare proposals are its most popular policies. Politically speaking, this is a simple question: who wants to increase welfare spending and who wants to reform a system everyone knows is no longer “fit for purpose”? We know where the Conservatives stand; it seems that Labour is likely to fight the next election as the party of increased welfare payments. The Tories are not unpleased by this.

Despite what you may have been led to believe, the public hates spending money on welfare. According to a YouGov poll released in January, 77 per cent of voters favour stripping child benefit payments from families containing one earner making more than £60,000. More significantly, 76 per cent support removing benefits from claimants who refuse to accept offers of employment. And while 28 per cent suspect the government is being “too harsh towards people on benefits”, some 47 per cent fear the government is “not being tough enough” on benefits.

Similarly, limiting the annual increase in benefit payments to 1 per cent in each of the next three years is approved of by 45 per cent of respondents, while 51 per cent also think it is “unfair” for benefits to rise “when many people in work are seeing their wages rise by less than inflation”.

Three in four voters also support IDS’s benefits cap. Most voters are, I think, appalled to discover that it is at present possible to claim £26,000 or more a year in benefit payments. Granted, only a small number of families find themselves receiving such extraordinary largesse, but the fact that some people do receive such remarkable disbursements from the public purse appals most Britons. Defenders of the status quo have trapped themselves in the position of defending the indefensible.

Nor is this a matter of mean-spirited English people hammering the poor, while generous “community-minded” Scots take a different line. Though the Scottish sample size in YouGov’s UK polls is small and should therefore be treated with some caution, it seems evident that, broadly speaking, there is no great difference between opinions north and south of the Border.

Indeed, Scots may take an even tougher line on welfare than voters elsewhere in the UK: 82 per cent support a benefits cap while 81 per cent agree benefits should be removed from those who decline a chance to work. An overseas observer contemplating this data might be tempted to conclude that Scotland and England could almost be part of the same country.

Visit any working-class pub in Scotland and you will hear opinions that make IDS seem like Polly Toynbee. Perhaps, as Ms Toynbee is wont to suggest, the public has been gulled by right-wing newspapers or hoodwinked by a false dichotomy between “shirkers” and “strivers”. Be that as it may, a majority of Labour voters also think the welfare bill is too high and would like to see something done about it.

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/8880981/welfare-that-works/

Edited 4 April, 2013 by trousers

[pap]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/04/welfare-reform-is-this-governments-most-difficult-but-most-popular-policy/

 

 

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/8880981/welfare-that-works/

 

Not really a patch on the other figures, is it?

 

What's the take on this? That people think its unfair that people get benefits because their wages haven't gone up?

 

Yep, we're definitely doing things for ALL the right reasons...

[trousers]

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/alex-massie-uk-says-yes-to-benefit-cuts-1-2875649

 

It is true that IDS’s handling of the latest controversies afflicting his department has been every bit as assured as his leadership of the Conservative party. There is a reason this man never threatened to become prime minister. Nevertheless, maladroit communication skills should not be taken as an excuse to play the man rather than the ball.

 

Contrary to what seems to be believed, IDS did not say it would be easy to live on £53 a week, far less did he suggest doing so would be some kind of picnic for which the welfare recipient should be grovellingly grateful. He said, instead, that if he “had to” live in such pressed circumstances, he “would”.

 

It will be no consolation that Marie Antoinette was similarly misunderstood. In the absence of bread, she suggested, the people might wish to make do with cake. The difference may be subtle but it is real.

 

The so-called “bedroom tax” (which is not a tax) has been handled ineptly, not least because its twin goals are mutually exclusive. It can only save money if claimants are persuaded to move, but it can only make more efficient use of social housing if claimants are able to move to smaller, more suitable properties.

 

Alas there is no abundant supply of such houses.That conundrum highlights how difficult reforming welfare really is. But at a time when it sometimes seems our politics has become desperately small, it is perversely typical that those ministers – most obviously IDS – who dare to take on large, difficult and complicated reforms are the ones most likely to become hated.

Shirking these issues is a cop-out, however, and as Iain Duncan Smith is discovering, the price of big ambitions is hatred. So be it.

Edited 4 April, 2013 by trousers

[trousers]

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Ouch...

[trousers]

Ouch...

 

It's only "ouch" if people form their opinions based on headlines rather than the detail...ah...yes... I see what you mean...

[trousers]

Tory Treasury ‏@ToryTreasury7m

Balls considering changing deficit ratio and abandoning ring-fences. So Lab planning tax rises & cutting the NHS... http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/04/labour-deficit-reduction-plan-election …

[Ex Lion Tamer]

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/alex-massie-uk-says-yes-to-benefit-cuts-1-2875649

The so-called “bedroom tax” (which is not a tax) has been handled ineptly, not least because its twin goals are mutually exclusive. It can only save money if claimants are persuaded to move, but it can only make more efficient use of social housing if claimants are able to move to smaller, more suitable properties.

 

Alas there is no abundant supply of such houses.That conundrum highlights how difficult reforming welfare really is. But at a time when it sometimes seems our politics has become desperately small, it is perversely typical that those ministers – most obviously IDS – who dare to take on large, difficult and complicated reforms are the ones most likely to become hated.

Shirking these issues is a cop-out, however, and as Iain Duncan Smith is discovering, the price of big ambitions is hatred. So be it.

 

This bit is idiotic. So his policy is self-defeating and cruel but he should be praised for doing it anyway?

Edited 5 April, 2013 by Ex Lion Tamer

[Ex Lion Tamer]

To balance some of the articles above from right wing publications, here is a properly evidenced report which shows that 'the culture of worklessness' is a myth

 

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/worklessness-families-employment-summary.pdf

[bridge too far]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2013/apr/04/living-on-benefits-readers-panel?CMP=SOCNETTXT6967

[trousers]

To balance some of the articles above from right wing publications

 

My last two links were to the Daily Mirror and the Guardian (just in case someone is counting)

[Ex Lion Tamer]

My last two links were to the Daily Mirror and the Guardian (just in case someone is counting)

 

Ah yes, ok, fair play!

[Sour Mash]

To balance some of the articles above from right wing publications, here is a properly evidenced report which shows that 'the culture of worklessness' is a myth

 

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/worklessness-families-employment-summary.pdf

Nothing in that report shows that there isn't a culture of worklessness in many communities across the UK. Utterly pointless piece.

[Chez]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2013/apr/04/living-on-benefits-readers-panel?CMP=SOCNETTXT6967

 

reading some of the real life stories at the end of that article really certainly paint a different picture to the "12 kids, £100k a year in benefits" stories in certain papers.

[bridge too far]

Nothing in that report shows that there isn't a culture of worklessness in many communities across the UK. Utterly pointless piece.

 

Many of those communities were decimated in the 80s / early 90s

[Sour Mash]

Many of those communities were decimated in the 80s / early 90s

Which communities?

[buctootim]

Which communities?

 

Exactly! They're 90% gone, making them hard to spot.