How to manage austerity in a caring society

[Hockey_saint]

just to throw in, whilst i was talking about employment... someone pointed out to me that employment levels have been lower at the end of every labour government, compared to when they took over. This is not only true for the last labour government, but every single time labour have been in office throughout history. Labour are the party of job destruction and unemployment.

 

Perhaps this explains why none of the lefties think that the recent employment news is good, as it goes against everything they have achieved throughout history. Maybe this is why buctootim wants to tax the crap out of small businesses, as it fits with his philosophy of job destruction??

 

i have already stated that i disagree with the cgt cut. i am not happy with cuts to disability benefits either. cuts do need to be made, but there are better choices. for instance, i would cut foreign aid to countries that run space and nuclear programmes, as they clearly dont need the money. not being tied to political dogma, enables you to apply common sense solutions to our problems.

 

Perhaps Labour are rubbish at hiding the figures compared to the conservatives. I mean, come on, all the job losses in the 80's, are you seriously telling me there were more employed in 97 than there were in 79? I don't think anyone wants to "tax the crap out of small business", It's small businesses that built this country....not massive financial giants and tax-dodging multi-nationals who appear to be good mates with this chancellor however.

 

I agree on removing the funding for Trident however as I have a friend who works for the Ministry of defence and he tells me...quite a bit...that it's not even an independent system...we need permission from the US for everything we do with it. Really Whitey Grandad, have you seen this..Brilliant: http://conservativedisabilitygroup.org.uk/

 

I've tried to eerr away from the using the word scumbag before but I'm afraid that if you agree with the measures they have taken, then that is exactly what you are. The economy is in a state, it's still failing but you've had 7 years to try and fix it and we're still in trouble so who should we still blame then?

[Johnny Bognor]

Perhaps Labour are rubbish at hiding the figures compared to the conservatives. I mean, come on, all the job losses in the 80's, are you seriously telling me there were more employed in 97 than there were in 79? I don't think anyone wants to "tax the crap out of small business", It's small businesses that built this country....not massive financial giants and tax-dodging multi-nationals who appear to be good mates with this chancellor however.

 

I never said after every tory government. In some cases, employment has been higher and in some cases it has not. But every labour government in history has destroyed more jobs than it has created. i personally think job creation and opportunity to work is a good thing. i've even welecomed the upcoming increase in the minimum wage.

 

I agree on removing the funding for Trident however as I have a friend who works for the Ministry of defence and he tells me...quite a bit...that it's not even an independent system...we need permission from the US for everything we do with it. Really Whitey Grandad, have you seen this..Brilliant: http://conservativedisabilitygroup.org.uk/

 

I was not referring to trident, but i think you know that. But how can anyone justify cutting disability benefits when we're sending aid to a country that is running an active space programme??

 

I also question how cutting CGT, which only benefits the rich, can be justified?

 

I still think there can be cuts, but they shouldn't levied on the least able to fend for themselves. For example, Why do we pay winter fuel allowance to people who dont even live here? why do we pay winter fuel allowance to wealthy pensioners who don't need it? it's ridiculous.

 

I think osbourne will be forced into u-turn with a back bench rebellion.

 

I've tried to eerr away from the using the word scumbag before but I'm afraid that if you agree with the measures they have taken, then that is exactly what you are. The economy is in a state, it's still failing but you've had 7 years to try and fix it and we're still in trouble so who should we still blame then?

 

I agree with somethings they do and i disagree with others. I agree with some things labour have done and disagree with others. I have clearly picked some things in the budget that i think are good. i have also highlighted some that are bad or unnecessary. I have even made some alternative suggestions which might help with our position. i happen to believe that more employment is a good thing. You and buctootim may not. That's up to you.

 

What i will not do, is blindly follow any one party on everything, as that's just plain stupid. I guess some people are plain stupid. I choose not to be stupid and be shackled by party dogma. If i think the tories are wrong on something, I will call them out on it. But if i think they have got something right, then i will say so. You calling me names wont change that, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead

[Hockey_saint]

I never said after every tory government. In some cases, employment has been higher and in some cases it has not. But every labour government in history has destroyed more jobs than it has created. i personally think job creation and opportunity to work is a good thing. i've even welecomed the upcoming increase in the minimum wage.

 

 

 

I was not referring to trident, but i think you know that. But how can anyone justify cutting disability benefits when we're sending aid to a country that is running an active space programme??

 

I also question how cutting CGT, which only benefits the rich, can be justified?

 

I still think there can be cuts, but they shouldn't levied on the least able to fend for themselves. For example, Why do we pay winter fuel allowance to people who dont even live here? why do we pay winter fuel allowance to wealthy pensioners who don't need it? it's ridiculous.

 

I think osbourne will be forced into u-turn with a back bench rebellion.

 

 

 

I agree with somethings they do and i disagree with others. I agree with some things labour have done and disagree with others. I have clearly picked some things in the budget that i think are good. i have also highlighted some that are bad or unnecessary. I have even made some alternative suggestions which might help with our position. i happen to believe that more employment is a good thing. You and buctootim may not. That's up to you.

 

What i will not do, is blindly follow any one party on everything, as that's just plain stupid. I guess some people are plain stupid. I choose not to be stupid and be shackled by party dogma. If i think the tories are wrong on something, I will call them out on it. But if i think they have got something right, then i will say so. You calling me names wont change that, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead

 

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?

Edited 18 March, 2016 by Hockey_saint

[Whitey Grandad]

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?

 

I really don't understand which world you live in.

 

Where do you think the government gets its money from? I repeat, from the poor bloody workers.

[Hockey_saint]

I really don't understand which world you live in.

 

Where do you think the government gets its money from? I repeat, from the poor bloody workers.

 

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

Edited 18 March, 2016 by Hockey_saint

[badgerx16]

Just posted on the BBC ;

"Planned changes to disability benefits outlined in Budget will be "kicked into long grass", government source says"

[Hockey_saint]

Just posted on the BBC ;

"Planned changes to disability benefits outlined in Budget will be "kicked into long grass", government source says"

 

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.

[bridge too far]

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.

 

And IDS has thrown his toys out of the pram and resigned! RESULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[mcjwills]

Ian Duncan Smith resigns over the cuts, how is Cameron going to explain this one.

[Hockey_saint]

Ian Duncan Smith resigns over the cuts, how is Cameron going to explain this one.

 

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?

Edited 18 March, 2016 by Hockey_saint

[Johnny Bognor]

Democracy at work!!

 

It doesnt look good that there will be a 2nd u turn on benefit cuts.. but at the end of the day, even for people who recognise that the books need to be balanced, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Picking on the disabled is a red line for most people.

Edited 18 March, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Hockey_saint]

Democracy at work!!

 

It doesnt look good that there will be a 2nd u turn on benefit cuts.. but at the end of the day, even for people who recognise that the books need to be balanced, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Picking on the disabled is a red line for most people.

 

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?"

Edited 19 March, 2016 by Hockey_saint

[angelman]

Democracy at work!!

 

It doesnt look good that there will be a 2nd u turn on benefit cuts.. but at the end of the day, even for people who recognise that the books need to be balanced, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Picking on the disabled is a red line for most people.

 

Firstly, I am a Tory (for my sins) but cannot stand Cameron nor his bum chum.

 

Secondly, I have a disabled kid (hence the user name). The strange thing in this is that the changes to PIP were not as drastic as the press and others made out, and also could be reasonably explained. If anyone knows the test, then it basically said that there was no need for on going payments for aides that are one off payments, which if you think about it, does actually make sense. It dropped questions 5(b) and 6(b) from 2 points to 1 point. Having said that, the real problem seems to be that moving from DLA to PIP was supposed to save money, but I believe average payments went from £86 to £100. Therefore, all the action taken by Georgie Boy were to rectify this. The other problem, which doesn't generally get mentioned, is that DLA recipients went up by 35% over the past 10 years, and supposedly trebled in the past 20. Government sees a huge increase in payments and wants to cut it.

 

As you say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The tax burden falls far far too squarely on the shoulders of individuals. Companies should pay their way. Cut out this paper exercise of shifting profits around the world so to pay nothing here. If we are talking about making £4-5 billion of savings, then all this avoidance dwarfs that amount. Also, when I heard the Budget that Corporation Tax was going to be cut to 17%, I thought as a business owner, that I didn't actually want that saving if it meant cuts to the disabled, and that's not out of personal circumstances, as when the nipper goes on to PIP, he is likely to score over 80 points. Having said that, I do think the trebling of DLA recipients does need looking into.

 

Anyway, hopefully this will mean Cameron and Osborne can bugger off to the Chiltern Hundreds. I'm not holding my breath, but I do think that it means Osborne will not take over when Cameron steps down, so at least we have that.

[Hockey_saint]

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".

[whelk]

Firstly, I am a Tory (for my sins) but cannot stand Cameron nor his bum chum.

 

Secondly, I have a disabled kid (hence the user name). The strange thing in this is that the changes to PIP were not as drastic as the press and others made out, and also could be reasonably explained. If anyone knows the test, then it basically said that there was no need for on going payments for aides that are one off payments, which if you think about it, does actually make sense. It dropped questions 5(b) and 6(b) from 2 points to 1 point. Having said that, the real problem seems to be that moving from DLA to PIP was supposed to save money, but I believe average payments went from £86 to £100. Therefore, all the action taken by Georgie Boy were to rectify this. The other problem, which doesn't generally get mentioned, is that DLA recipients went up by 35% over the past 10 years, and supposedly trebled in the past 20. Government sees a huge increase in payments and wants to cut it.

 

As you say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The tax burden falls far far too squarely on the shoulders of individuals. Companies should pay their way. Cut out this paper exercise of shifting profits around the world so to pay nothing here. If we are talking about making £4-5 billion of savings, then all this avoidance dwarfs that amount. Also, when I heard the Budget that Corporation Tax was going to be cut to 17%, I thought as a business owner, that I didn't actually want that saving if it meant cuts to the disabled, and that's not out of personal circumstances, as when the nipper goes on to PIP, he is likely to score over 80 points. Having said that, I do think the trebling of DLA recipients does need looking into.

 

Anyway, hopefully this will mean Cameron and Osborne can bugger off to the Chiltern Hundreds. I'm not holding my breath, but I do think that it means Osborne will not take over when Cameron steps down, so at least we have that.

 

Good points. I know people who get DLA and now presumably PIP for conditions when earn £45-£50k. Not sure why this needed and sympathetic to their condition but how does money help? Means testing would be a night mare of course.

 

Problem is sensitivity on such issues. There is a picture of IDS laughing in the House of Commons that people bring out showing how insensitive he is but it is when he was cheering the living wage proposals.

 

Mention cuts and people think he is taking away wheelchairs for sick kids.

Having said that not a supporter at all. Osborne is royally fcking up which is funny. If only labour could become a credible opposition. Even all the Tory in fighting and mess ain't going cost them the next election.

[Hockey_saint]

Good points. I know people who get DLA and now presumably PIP for conditions when earn £45-£50k. Not sure why this needed and sympathetic to their condition but how does money help? Means testing would be a night mare of course.

 

Problem is sensitivity on such issues. There is a picture of IDS laughing in the House of Commons that people bring out showing how insensitive he is but it is when he was cheering the living wage proposals.

 

Mention cuts and people think he is taking away wheelchairs for sick kids.

Having said that not a supporter at all. Osborne is royally fcking up which is funny. If only labour could become a credible opposition. Even all the Tory in fighting and mess ain't going cost them the next election.

 

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.

Edited 19 March, 2016 by Hockey_saint

[badgerx16]

I think part of the government bean counters' problem is that when they switched to the new assessment process, they factored in a reduction in overall claims, which automatically generated a saving on the overall budget. Unfortunately for them, the new assessment process, primarily intended to prune the claim rates, is so screwed up that 60% of appeals are successful, which means more people are receiving PIP than they intended.

[CB Fry]

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.

 

Surely there should be a principle that parents of disabled children should get state support regardless of earnings?

 

Two households on £100k collectively a year but one has a disabled child and one with not-disabled child. The family with the disabled child are still at a significant financial disadvantage - paying for a disabled child isn't a luxury, it's not discretionary spend of disposable income.

[whelk]

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.

 

My point was if someone is in work and has no obvious need for adjustments why should they get benefit? Anyone with children who have needs should get the same and not down to wealth of parents

[Hockey_saint]

Surely there should be a principle that parents of disabled children should get state support regardless of earnings?

 

Two households on £100k collectively a year but one has a disabled child and one with not-disabled child. The family with the disabled child are still at a significant financial disadvantage - paying for a disabled child isn't a luxury, it's not discretionary spend of disposable income.

 

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.

Edited 19 March, 2016 by Hockey_saint

[angelman]

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.

 

It may be semantics to some but it is important. Cameron wasn't claiming DLA, he was (that is if you know he was) claiming on behalf of his son. You start taking benefits from people because of how well off their parents are and you enter a world of trouble.

[angelman]

Surely there should be a principle that parents of disabled children should get state support regardless of earnings?

 

Two households on £100k collectively a year but one has a disabled child and one with not-disabled child. The family with the disabled child are still at a significant financial disadvantage - paying for a disabled child isn't a luxury, it's not discretionary spend of disposable income.

 

As per my above post, it is the child getting the benefit not the parents

[Hockey_saint]

As per my above post, it is the child getting the benefit not the parents

 

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.

[John B]

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has said it is too late for Duncan Smith “to paint himself as a champion of the disabled”, adding that it is successive governments that are to blame for young people having to pay for bankers’ failures.

 

Iain Duncan Smith correctly observed in his resignation letter that the government’s fiscal approach is increasingly regarded as an ideological-driven dead end even in the Tory Party, but it is far too late for this former Tory leader to paint himself as a champion of the disabled when he has presided for so long over a welfare regime that has left disabled and ill people in dire poverty and desperate fear.

 

Iain Duncan Smith is right to identify the way in which young people have been made to pay for the greed and fraud of the bankers, but he is wrong to blame a whole generation of their elders.

 

Britain’s state pension is among the lowest in Western Europe, 16% of pensioners live in poverty. The problem lies with the decisions of successive governments to allow rich individuals to accumulate a larger share of the nation’s wealth, while multinational companies have become parasites failing to pay their way with taxes or decent wages and benefiting from wholesale privatization of public assets.

 

I cannot disagree can anyone

[John B]

I really don't understand which world you live in.

 

Where do you think the government gets its money from? I repeat, from the poor bloody workers.

 

Yes but should get more from the rich and big business but they donate to the Tory Party

[Batman]

what a load of crap this fizzy drink tax is.

[bridge too far]

what a load of crap this fizzy drink is.

 

Corrected it for you

[Batman]

Corrected it for you

 

you think it is a good thing?

[saint1977]

Not surprised at what has transpired re: IDS and Osborne, has been known in Conservative and Whitehall circles for some years that the two have been at loggerheads and tension had reached very high levels. IIRC George and David were IDS speechwriters when he had his 'Corbyn' moment in the early 2000s and word on the grapevine suggests respect in either direction wasn't completely mutual.

 

Quite a nasty discourse building though, Downing St and Treasury saying the proposals were very much the DWP's, and the IDS camp claiming otherwise. To what extent is this driven by the EU referendum? Hard to say, probably is a factor but my reading is that this isn't the foreground issue.

 

More about IDS wanting to put a nail in the coffin of Osborne's PM hopes - and he won't be disappointed at the immediate fallout. Can't help feeling IDS is living a large glass house and throwing stones though.

 

Think like most others, he's realised that public opinion is shifting on disability cuts, multinationals paying their dues and earning the right to compete in the UK market by contributing to our infrastructure and public services their staff use, living wage, CEO governance (look at the reputational damage Ashley and Sports Direct have suffered) and so on. Ironic that Labour elected such a dinosaur when they could have been making hay. It's just the non-doms running the tabloids and a few on the Tory right who haven't caught up yet.

 

The modern Tory MPs, particularly the 2015 intake, seem to get it though and been impressed with their energy.

[Hockey_saint]

Not surprised at what has transpired re: IDS and Osborne, has been known in Conservative and Whitehall circles for some years that the two have been at loggerheads and tension had reached very high levels. IIRC George and David were IDS speechwriters when he had his 'Corbyn' moment in the early 2000s and word on the grapevine suggests respect in either direction wasn't completely mutual.

 

Quite a nasty discourse building though, Downing St and Treasury saying the proposals were very much the DWP's, and the IDS camp claiming otherwise. To what extent is this driven by the EU referendum? Hard to say, probably is a factor but my reading is that this isn't the foreground issue.

 

More about IDS wanting to put a nail in the coffin of Osborne's PM hopes - and he won't be disappointed at the immediate fallout. Can't help feeling IDS is living a large glass house and throwing stones though.

 

Think like most others, he's realised that public opinion is shifting on disability cuts, multinationals paying their dues and earning the right to compete in the UK market by contributing to our infrastructure and public services their staff use, living wage, CEO governance (look at the reputational damage Ashley and Sports Direct have suffered) and so on. Ironic that Labour elected such a dinosaur when they could have been making hay. It's just the non-doms running the tabloids and a few on the Tory right who haven't caught up yet.

 

The modern Tory MPs, particularly the 2015 intake, seem to get it though and been impressed with their energy.

 

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.

[saint1977]

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.

 

Fortunately I live in Devon HS so Royston is nothing to do with me thankfully! Bar Exeter it is bluer than a Saturday night in Soho round here but tbf the 2015 Tory intake have been amongst the leading dissenting voices plus existing MPs such as Sarah Wolleaston.

 

As for Royston, if Labour can sort their **** out - big if - and despise the Commie moron - they'll take back his seat in 2020 which would be just desserts. I never vote Labour but even I'd have to hold my nose and do it.

[Batman]

this budget has not gone well

 

lol

[Hockey_saint]

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.

[buctootim]

Good interview with IDS. Ive never liked him before but he did seem to genuinely believe in the 'one nation' stuff. Obviously it helps that he was sticking the knife into Osborne, but sabotaging his chances of becoming PM will be good both for the country and the Conservatives.

[Hockey_saint]

Good interview with IDS. Ive never liked him before but he did seem to genuinely believe in the 'one nation' stuff. Obviously it helps that he was sticking the knife into Osborne, but sabotaging his chances of becoming PM will be good both for the country and the Conservatives.

 

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.

[buctootim]

Dave is in a bit of quandry over the Tata steel issue. He has spent years vetoing attempts by the EU to stop Chinese dumping of steel in Europe, and now the British steel industry is under threat of total annihilation. Poor Dave.

[Shroppie]

Dave is in a bit of quandry over the Tata steel issue. He has spent years vetoing attempts by the EU to stop Chinese dumping of steel in Europe, and now the British steel industry is under threat of total annihilation. Poor Dave.

My heart bleeds for him.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[Hockey_saint]

Dave is in a bit of quandry over the Tata steel issue. He has spent years vetoing attempts by the EU to stop Chinese dumping of steel in Europe, and now the British steel industry is under threat of total annihilation. Poor Dave.

 

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

 

Poor Dave.

[Batman]

thing is, this will probably be brushed off as the opposition are just terrible

[Hockey_saint]

thing is, this will probably be brushed off as the opposition are just terrible

 

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.

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

 

The problem is where do you stop. There have been plenty of small manufacturing businesses go under over the last couple of decades but nobody was calling for them to get government subsidies. I might agree that steel manufacturing is of national importance but to what extent should fellow citizens support an industry that's losing a million pounds a day?

[Hockey_saint]

The problem is where do you stop. There have been plenty of small manufacturing businesses go under over the last couple of decades but nobody was calling for them to get government subsidies. I might agree that steel manufacturing is of national importance but to what extent should fellow citizens support an industry that's losing a million pounds a day?

 

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.

[buctootim]

The problem is where do you stop. There have been plenty of small manufacturing businesses go under over the last couple of decades but nobody was calling for them to get government subsidies. I might agree that steel manufacturing is of national importance but to what extent should fellow citizens support an industry that's losing a million pounds a day?

 

But its not a question of subsidies, its a question of tariffs. The EU have been trying to stop the Chinese dumping steel in the UK at below cost prices since at least 2013. The US impose a 200% tariff on all Chinese steel imports and the EU want to raise our tariff from its current low 9%. Who is vetoing them? the UK Government. When the Government says it is doing everything it can to save UK steel it isnt a question of spin or nuance - its a flat out lie.

 

The Chinese now have over 50% of the global market for steel and other producers are going out of business all the time because the Chinese operate below cost. Its strategically important for Britain and the EU to have its own production capacity otherwise we risk being held hostage to some political change down the line.

 

Dave should cut the crap and support the EU action.

[Whitey Grandad]

But its not a question of subsidies, its a question of tariffs. The EU have been trying to stop the Chinese dumping steel in the UK at below cost prices since at least 2013. The US impose a 200% tariff on all Chinese steel imports and the EU want to raise our tariff from its current low 9%. Who is vetoing them? the UK Government. When the Government says it is doing everything it can to save UK steel it isnt a question of spin or nuance - its a flat out lie.

 

The Chinese now have over 50% of the global market for steel and other producers are going out of business all the time because the Chinese operate below cost. Its strategically important for Britain and the EU to have its own production capacity otherwise we risk being held hostage to some political change down the line.

 

Dave should cut the crap and support the EU action.

 

There was some talk on Radio 4 yesterday about subsidies which is why I raised the issue. We're getting a bit off topic here but it does seem ironic at a time when many want us to leave the EU because they say that we are governed from Brussels yet CMD is apparently responsible for such a low tariff on Chinese steel. The other issue is that one reason that steel production here is so expensive is because of the high energy costs due to the Climate Change Levy yet the Chinese can burn all the coal that they want in order to dump all their cheap steel on us.

 

A lack of major construction projects is also another reason for the low demand for steel in Britain.

[John B]

There was some talk on Radio 4 yesterday about subsidies which is why I raised the issue. We're getting a bit off topic here but it does seem ironic at a time when many want us to leave the EU because they say that we are governed from Brussels yet CMD is apparently responsible for such a low tariff on Chinese steel. The other issue is that one reason that steel production here is so expensive is because of the high energy costs due to the Climate Change Levy yet the Chinese can burn all the coal that they want in order to dump all their cheap steel on us.

 

A lack of major construction projects is also another reason for the low demand for steel in Britain.

 

I totally agree with you especially the last sentence as a country we need to invest to leave future generations with good schools roads houses hospitals etc

[Johnny Bognor]

I totally agree with you especially the last sentence as a country we need to invest to leave future generations with good schools roads houses hospitals etc

 

.... and not saddle them with our debts.

[buctootim]

The worm has turned. I never thought I'd see Peter Hitchens write this in the Mail:

 

"Privatisation! Free trade! Shares for all! The great con that ruined Britain"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3520932/PETER-HITCHENS-Privatisation-Free-trade-Shares-great-ruined-Britain.html

[Hockey_saint]

The worm has turned. I never thought I'd see Peter Hitchens write this in the Mail:

 

"Privatisation! Free trade! Shares for all! The great con that ruined Britain"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3520932/PETER-HITCHENS-Privatisation-Free-trade-Shares-great-ruined-Britain.html

 

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.

[Batman]

£172million is what we OVERSPENT on Foreign Aid last year by mistake - as sneaked out by the Government on Friday. That's enough to keep Port Talbot steel plant alive for six months

 

Why do the political classes still insist that we can afford to send nearly £1billion per month in aid to countries with space programmes and burgeoning middle classes whilst hard-working UK taxpayers struggle with the rising cost of living, face the likely prospect of never seeing a state pension and are burdened with the largest national debt in history?

[saint1977]

I really don't understand which world you live in.

 

Where do you think the government gets its money from? I repeat, from the poor bloody workers.

 

Quite, which is why the Conservatives and their multinational backers doubling the employment tribunal limit and introducing fees was a disgraceful thing to do, even if I've agreed with certain elements of their other policies. I'm sure you'll fully agree with me on this.