Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:59 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

The concern should not be the colour of the party in power at the time that the ideaology was introduced, nor for that matter the concern of why all party's seem happy to continue and expand the ideaology, but should be the concern that a privately owned, for-profit business model could be constructed from a process that should be the responsibility of a government department, ie the assesment of criteria to hand out public money from a government department should be well within the capabilities of that department given that it is they who write the specifications in the first place.

When you then introduce a bonus system based on a target of refusals, then you are starting to get insidious, there should be no targets, merely qualifications - with qualifications you have a line in the sand where disability recieves or doesn't recieve support, with targets you have a moveable line that no-one really understands from one month to the next.

so, it's labour ideology to make the sick/disabled suffer? their voters should be ashamed of themselves.

the colour of the party is entirely relevant. the process wasn't set up by the money grabbing, capitalist swine tories it was set up by the sodding labour party. it's exactly the sort of thing the tories would and indeed should do. the fact is the labour party did it. they decided the sick/disabled were screwing the system. what's that word that does the rounds here, oh yeah, the labour party and by association it's voters 'demonise' the sick/disabled.

the government decided the private sector could do it cheaper and quicker.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:02 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I think you might have missed the point.
The state was not "spent-up" until after the banks had been bailed-out, up until then the deficit and debt levels were well within manageable margins by any Western Democratic state's standards.

ah, someone else who thinks 2008-2010 should be erased from the record books. i'm sure the hundreds of thousand who lost their jobs will be pleased. a price worth paying? how very tory of you.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:14 pm  

However you look at matters conventional Keynesian economics would suggest a cycle where growth and government debt are linked - when growth occurs debts should fall and visa versa. Under the last government labour the opposite happened, towards the end it was - even to labour - unsustainable and cuts - by their own admission - would have to be made.

Regarding benefits you cannot have a position whereby those who choose not to work are better off than those who do, its immoral. Not giving annual increases to those who choose not to work helps to redress the balance a little, this is a cut I agree with. Benefits should provide a very basic subsistence not cigarettes, Sky TV, beer, holidays etc.

Of the deficit how much is represented by our stake in the banks and the potential revenue we might get from selling them? How long will it be before we do sell our stake?

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:26 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Regarding benefits you cannot have a position whereby those who choose not to work are better off than those who do

yes you can. if enough people vote for the party that allows this then that's what happens.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:57 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Regarding benefits you cannot have a position whereby those who choose not to work are better off than those who do, its immoral. Not giving annual increases to those who choose not to work helps to redress the balance a little, this is a cut I agree with. Benefits should provide a very basic subsistence not cigarettes, Sky TV, beer, holidays etc.

Which people have chosen not to work?

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:08 pm  

samwire wrote:

so, it's labour ideology to make the sick/disabled suffer? their voters should be ashamed of themselves.

the colour of the party is entirely relevant. the process wasn't set up by the money grabbing, capitalist swine tories it was set up by the sodding labour party. it's exactly the sort of thing the tories would and indeed should do. the fact is the labour party did it. they decided the sick/disabled were screwing the system. what's that word that does the rounds here, oh yeah, the labour party and by association it's voters 'demonise' the sick/disabled.

the government decided the private sector could do it cheaper and quicker.

You're waving the football scarf again, every time I mention football supporter politics you absolutely hate the tag, and then follow up every time with another example of football supporter politics, your team can do no wrong, its always the fault of the other team - its not just you though, its the politicians themselves who are so busy trying to blame the other party that they don't see the iceberg approaching through the fog, they're so busy trying to get some witty responses put together for their Tuesday bunfights that they forget to check things like actual facts when making important public speeches, it would be pathetic if it weren't so true and yet so important not to do it.

Carry on though, you're quite funny, bring a rattle to wave next time, in team colours of course.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:13 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Not giving annual increases to those who choose not to work helps to redress the balance a little, this is a cut I agree with. Benefits should provide a very basic subsistence not cigarettes, Sky TV, beer, holidays etc.

I agree with your first point, but for your second, how low would you set the bar - if we assume a family of two adults and two school age children (say, in their teens) but both parents out of work although seeking work - what should the benefits office pay the family ?

Kicking off with housing benefit, if we assume that they are in rented accomodation should their benefits pay all fo their rent or just some of it ?

Should their council tax be subsidised or waivered ?

How about a car, is it reasonable that they should be able to run a modest five year old car ?

Food ?

Clothing ?

Where should we set the bar ?

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:08 pm  

Him wrote:

Which people have chosen not to work?

In my extended family there are 9 who could work but would rather claim the benefit because it easier and they will make more money when you add all the different benefits they can claim. All have children none appear to be married not sure how that helps but it must.

2 have been convicted of dealing drugs - this is a matter of public record - yet still claim the benefit despite being able to afford £40k worth of ganga plants and £10k of cash that they extracted in the raid, he was also renting two houses not bad on benefits.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:17 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I agree with your first point, but for your second, how low would you set the bar - if we assume a family of two adults and two school age children (say, in their teens) but both parents out of work although seeking work - what should the benefits office pay the family ?

Kicking off with housing benefit, if we assume that they are in rented accomodation should their benefits pay all fo their rent or just some of it ?

Should their council tax be subsidised or waivered ?

How about a car, is it reasonable that they should be able to run a modest five year old car ?

Food ?

Clothing ?

Where should we set the bar ?

The benefits should cover the essentials, a car is not essential, food yes but there needs to be a way of ensuring that is where the money goes same for clothing which should only cover the children. What we should not see is the unemployed abusing the situation. There should a relationship between the minimum wage and benefits, no one should be better off not working than working.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:54 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

In my extended family there are 9 who could work but would rather claim the benefit because it easier and they will make more money when you add all the different benefits they can claim. All have children none appear to be married not sure how that helps but it must.

2 have been convicted of dealing drugs - this is a matter of public record - yet still claim the benefit despite being able to afford £40k worth of ganga plants and £10k of cash that they extracted in the raid, he was also renting two houses not bad on benefits.

so because your family is ripping the p**s out of the system the everyone on benefits are doing the same. You thought of shopping any of them or are you as suspected, all mouth?