Another tory defects to UKIP

[PAPA LAZAROU]

Surely that's an oxymoron?

 

Not many people will get that including me .  

[PAPA LAZAROU]

Missed the tax break for the rich. Have you got a link ?

 

It's hard to understand what Osborne is doing, I know he wants to present a sensible fiscal argument and be honest with the public over the state of the nation's finances but that simply doesn't win you votes in election years. He should be up there making false promises and lying his backside off, if they do get re-elected then they'll be out anyway in 2020 as the public will be long bored of a Cameron after ten years.

 

He's clearly doing to go down as an exceptional chancellor giving the economic recovery he has overseen but it's going to be a far shorter stint than he thinks if he isn't prepared to bribe people for votes, that's just the way it is nowadays. Brown made it acceptable for a generation to be dependant on state support and now a lot of the electorate have a firm belief they are entitled to it, you've got familes on 50k+ incomes receiving tax credits It's an absurd situation we've got into.

 

Labour's lead is increasing and it's on the back of all these ridiculous promises from Ed that even the most hardened Labour follower knows he won't be able to back up, unworkable mansion taxes, a bankers bonus tax that has already been spent ten times over. Apart from those couple of soundbites he didnt even mention the economy in his speech If that doesn't show people what is in the mind of the party then nothing will.

 

I think George is seriously overestimating the political intellect of the electorate. Ed is securing the idiot vote that could lead him to number 10, he needs to find a way to cut into it.

 

 

Matt just for once I think you are wrong on this. I think Osborn has hit a nerve with his clean up the socialist dependency culture. Sometimes policy's just work at the right time ( Maggie Thatcher ) and I think now is the time for him to go with his gut feeling that the average elector has had enough of this dependency culture and we can actually start to see and hear someone in power to change that as chancellor of the exchequer . God knows we have waited long enough for some one with the balls to not bother about public opinion, and do what has to be done in the full knowledge that people will be encourage to vote to keep that happening in the name of common sense .  

[Rincewind]

I thought when you painted a wall you start from the top so the paint runs down. Start from the bottom and the paint will run on to the part already done.

[purpleronnie]

cutting housing benefits and JSA for 18-21 year olds, they're really on a poor bashing roll now.

 

next up Making the homeless pay rent.

[Webbo]

I thought when you painted a wall you start from the top so the paint runs down. Start from the bottom and the paint will run on to the part already done.

If you're any good you don't get runs anyway. Let me know if you need any decorating tips.

cutting housing benefits and JSA for 18-21 year olds, they're really on a poor bashing roll now.

 

next up Making the homeless pay rent.

How so?

[PAPA LAZAROU]

I thought when you painted a wall you start from the top so the paint runs down. Start from the bottom and the paint will run on to the part already done.

 

 

We all have thoughts but it's hard to have one that's exclusive to yourself. And that's not one.

[Alf Bentley]

Matt just for once I think you are wrong on this. I think Osborn has hit a nerve with his clean up the socialist dependency culture. Sometimes policy's just work at the right time ( Maggie Thatcher ) and I think now is the time for him to go with his gut feeling that the average elector has had enough of this dependency culture and we can actually start to see and hear someone in power to change that as chancellor of the exchequer . God knows we have waited long enough for some one with the balls to not bother about public opinion, and do what has to be done in the full knowledge that people will be encourage to vote to keep that happening in the name of common sense .  

 

Another view from Mark Easton (BBC)....

 

Welfare Freeze: Who Would Be Hit?

Cutting welfare goes down well with voters. But it is notoriously difficult to achieve meaningful savings without hurting the very people you are looking to support and encourage.

 

 

So it is with George Osborne's announcement today. The proposed freeze on working-age benefits, if the Conservatives are elected in 2015, looks eye-catching. But its effect may cause some to reflect.

The Chancellor calculates that it will save £3.2bn over two years, 2016/17 and 2017/18. Treasury figures suggest the total welfare bill across those two years will be roughly £356bn - so the saving would amount to about 0.9% of the total.

To put it another way, the freeze would not affect 99.1% of welfare spending. Nevertheless, £3bn is not an insignificant sum and some will argue it would be an important contribution to cutting the deficit.

The question, however, is whether the real-terms cut targets the right people. Around two-thirds of those affected by the freeze are in working households. Government figures show that some 67% of those receiving child or working tax credits are designated to be "in-work families". Most of those in receipt of child benefit will also be working.

It will also hit some of the poorest families in Britain. Income Support, which is included in the freeze, is a benefit specifically targeted at the poor. Child benefit can be the difference between just getting by and going without the basics for some low-income families.

The freeze, then, saves a fraction of total welfare spending and predominantly hits low-income "hard-working families", as politicians like to describe them.

The Conservatives came to power promising to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and "build an economy that delivers for people who work hard".

Part of the problem is that the public have a misplaced idea of what the benefits budget is actually spent on. Slightly more than half of it goes to pensioners. Out of a total welfare bill of £168bn this year, £86.5bn is spent on the state pension alone. The over 65s have proved to be the untouchables when it comes to welfare reform.

 

Jobseekers Allowance, by comparison, is estimated to be £3.4bn this financial year - just 2% of the total benefits spend. Indeed, the annual cost of JSA has fallen by £1.1bn during the current parliament, while expenditure on the state pension is now £16.5bn higher than in 2010/11.

The other proposed benefits reform announced by the chancellor was a cut to the welfare cap, the maximum amount a working-age household can claim in benefits. Currently at £26,000 a year, the intention is to reduce that to £23,000 - approximately £58 a week less.

Mr Osborne can argue that benefits have risen faster than wages over the past few years and so the reduction - based on the average incomes of a working household - is fair.

The welfare cap has proved a popular policy amid stories of huge families living in state-funded "mansions". However, the government concedes that the savings are modest - around £300m a year, or 0.2% of the benefits budget.

Moving the annual welfare cap down by £3,000 will increase the savings but it is unlikely to make any serious in road into the benefits bill or the deficit.

The point about today's announcements is less their impact on welfare spending and more their impact on the fast-approaching general election campaign.

[PAPA LAZAROU]

cutting housing benefits and JSA for 18-21 year olds, they're really on a poor bashing roll now.

 

next up Making the homeless pay rent.

 

 

 

And why not every one else has to pay rent or a mortgage why should the homeless get away with it ? 

[Buce]

Not many people will get that including me .

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxymoron

[PAPA LAZAROU]

Another view from Mark Easton (BBC)....

 

Welfare Freeze: Who Would Be Hit?

Cutting welfare goes down well with voters. But it is notoriously difficult to achieve meaningful savings without hurting the very people you are looking to support and encourage.

 

 

So it is with George Osborne's announcement today. The proposed freeze on working-age benefits, if the Conservatives are elected in 2015, looks eye-catching. But its effect may cause some to reflect.

The Chancellor calculates that it will save £3.2bn over two years, 2016/17 and 2017/18. Treasury figures suggest the total welfare bill across those two years will be roughly £356bn - so the saving would amount to about 0.9% of the total.

To put it another way, the freeze would not affect 99.1% of welfare spending. Nevertheless, £3bn is not an insignificant sum and some will argue it would be an important contribution to cutting the deficit.

The question, however, is whether the real-terms cut targets the right people. Around two-thirds of those affected by the freeze are in working households. Government figures show that some 67% of those receiving child or working tax credits are designated to be "in-work families". Most of those in receipt of child benefit will also be working.

It will also hit some of the poorest families in Britain. Income Support, which is included in the freeze, is a benefit specifically targeted at the poor. Child benefit can be the difference between just getting by and going without the basics for some low-income families.

The freeze, then, saves a fraction of total welfare spending and predominantly hits low-income "hard-working families", as politicians like to describe them.

The Conservatives came to power promising to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and "build an economy that delivers for people who work hard".

Part of the problem is that the public have a misplaced idea of what the benefits budget is actually spent on. Slightly more than half of it goes to pensioners. Out of a total welfare bill of £168bn this year, £86.5bn is spent on the state pension alone. The over 65s have proved to be the untouchables when it comes to welfare reform.

 

Jobseekers Allowance, by comparison, is estimated to be £3.4bn this financial year - just 2% of the total benefits spend. Indeed, the annual cost of JSA has fallen by £1.1bn during the current parliament, while expenditure on the state pension is now £16.5bn higher than in 2010/11.

The other proposed benefits reform announced by the chancellor was a cut to the welfare cap, the maximum amount a working-age household can claim in benefits. Currently at £26,000 a year, the intention is to reduce that to £23,000 - approximately £58 a week less.

Mr Osborne can argue that benefits have risen faster than wages over the past few years and so the reduction - based on the average incomes of a working household - is fair.

The welfare cap has proved a popular policy amid stories of huge families living in state-funded "mansions". However, the government concedes that the savings are modest - around £300m a year, or 0.2% of the benefits budget.

Moving the annual welfare cap down by £3,000 will increase the savings but it is unlikely to make any serious in road into the benefits bill or the deficit.

The point about today's announcements is less their impact on welfare spending and more their impact on the fast-approaching general election campaign.

 

 

Agreed Alf. But I'm old enough to realise there comes a point with the electorate when they have had enough of footing the bill for socialist thinking and governance. 1979 was a watershed mark in British politics and ushered in a period when the electorate accepted that some thing big had to be done to stop the rot of our society due to years of feckless Labour governments being blackmailed by the unions. And so it came to pass.

 

Everyone who is a socialist blames Thatcher and her government for what they did, without ever stopping to think that it was because of Socialist doctrine that she got power in the first place but I digress.   People only feel safe when they are financially comfortable and so far this government and Osborn is delivering that to the majority  it's what the Tory's do best.

[PAPA LAZAROU]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxymoron

 

Why thank you I had no idea .  

[Rincewind]

And why not every one else has to pay rent or a mortgage why should the homeless get away with it ? 

The 19-21 year olds will be homeless. 50% of 16-21 year olds become homeless because their parents no longer wish to house them. 80% of landlords will not take on tenants receiving housing benefits.

[johnny the fox]

I think we should really go after the homeless and tax cardboard boxes,. 

[Rincewind]

Then they came for me

But there was no-one left

To speak up for me

[PAPA LAZAROU]

The 19-21 year olds will be homeless. 50% of 16-21 year olds become homeless because their parents no longer wish to house them. 80% of landlords will not take on tenants receiving housing benefits.

 

Sorry Rince if you are going to come out with such absolute rubbish you had better back it up with independent figures. 

[PAPA LAZAROU]

The 19-21 year olds will be homeless. 50% of 16-21 year olds become homeless because their parents no longer wish to house them. 80% of landlords will not take on tenants receiving housing benefits.

 

Just thought you did realise it was a nonsensical wind up ?   

[Webbo]

When my sister got pregnant and her boyfriend was a useless willy puller, she had to move in with her in laws and then they had to serve them with an eviction notice so that they could jump the council house waiting list. The in laws lived in a large house in a nice part of Derby and could and would have put them up. It was all a set up following advice from social services. It's a well known trick.

[Rincewind]

Sorry Rince if you are going to come out with such absolute rubbish you had better back it up with independent figures. 

Those are independent. Do you think any government or their  supporters would release figures that put them in a bad light?

[MooseBreath]

I said over on the Liverpool Way yesterday that moving away from cash benefits is a good idea, but that benefits cards will just be traded, so a better idea would be to introduce rations. Just give people a pack of the bare essentials of food and toiletries needed to survive like some bread, butter, cheese, milk, toothpaste etc.

Needless to say it went down very badly over there and I received pages of abuse, one poster even dubbed it "rationgate", but the more I think about it the more I like the idea. It perfectly fulfils the purpose of the welfare state, and by creating an efficient inhouse production and delivery service the country would save no end of money.

[PAPA LAZAROU]

Those are independent. Do you think any government or their  supporters would release figures that put them in a bad light?

 

Source ?

[Rincewind]

When my sister got pregnant and her boyfriend was a useless willy puller, she had to move in with her in laws and then they had to serve them with an eviction notice so that they could jump the council house waiting list. The in laws lived in a large house in a nice part of Derby and could and would have put them up. It was all a set up following advice from social services. It's a well known trick.

I accept that. There is a tool on the Shelter website giving a guide to eligibility for housing. The housing offices often get it wrong and it is up to social services and charities to correct them This is for emergency accommodation   though.

Your sister would have been eligible if A) Was a British citizen B) had a local connection C)Pregnant D) served with an eviction notice. So despite it looking dodgy it was legal. The one thing that over rules these things is if a person makes themselves intentionally homeless IE, not paying rent or mortgage. But even that has exceptions if the person has a partner who was responsible for paying the above but did not.

 

I am doing the above from memory having done a few weeks of scenarios and going over the rules with colleagues. It is best to my knowledge correct. There are other sub sections which are not relevant at this time.

[Rincewind]

Watch this video. This woman voted for Cameron at the last election and has been a lifelong Tory member. She now has arthritis confined to her wheelchair. She was a torch bearer at the Olympics. In another article she has written a letter to David Cameron asking why disabled people are being treated like they are. She says in the article that she dreams of  suicide to save his government from needing to worry about her.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ros-wynne-jones-column-mary-laver-2855221

 

Meanwhile, Mary’s letter tells Cameron that “at 66, severely disabled and totally human and wheelchair-dependent,” she dreams of suicide to save his ­Government from needing to worry about her.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/disabled-tory-party-member-tells-4354236#ixzz3Eq0l8oBJ
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

[Guest MattP]

cutting housing benefits and JSA for 18-21 year olds, they're really on a poor bashing roll now.

 

next up Making the homeless pay rent.

 

Given the definition we often hear of a homeless person now ie a person who isn't actually homeless then why not?

 

Who should pay everyone's rent? Of course, the taxpayer. How silly of me.

 

Agreed Alf. But I'm old enough to realise there comes a point with the electorate when they have had enough of footing the bill for socialist thinking and governance. 1979 was a watershed mark in British politics and ushered in a period when the electorate accepted that some thing big had to be done to stop the rot of our society due to years of feckless Labour governments being blackmailed by the unions. And so it came to pass.

 

Everyone who is a socialist blames Thatcher and her government for what they did, without ever stopping to think that it was because of Socialist doctrine that she got power in the first place but I digress.   People only feel safe when they are financially comfortable and so far this government and Osborn is delivering that to the majority  it's what the Tory's do best.

 

Great points.

 

The problem I think though is after Labour last time people actually have the widespread belief they are entitled to something for nothing, I wasn't around in the 70's but the Labour party back then whilst still obviously completely incompetent with money still did come across as a party that expected it's voters and supporters to earn a living, it's a far different audience now that Osborne is fighting against. You've got people like Ken claiming they are being treated like the Jews were in the 1930's because the state won't provide them a multi room house at the expense of the taxpayer.

 

You say people shouldn't spend their welfare money in booze and fags and you are looked at like the one who is the villian, it's such a strange situation to have got ourselves into.

 

Then they came for me

But there was no-one left

To speak up for me

 

'First they came for the homeless' - just doesn't quite inspire in the same way as it does with a picture of Belsen in the background does it?

[Rincewind]

I had UKLiberals come up on my Twitter page. Looked them up and they seem to have the original liberal Party values. They have about a dozen Councillors. They are betwween Labour and the Lib Dems who they deny having no connection with.

They have one policy which will please sport fans. They want sport events to available to all on TV channels instead of one or two on subscription like Sky and BT.

But saying all this they have less chance of getting any  seats than the MRLP so we are just left with the two main parties and the odd fringe party. Not a great prospect. Like the song goes 'Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.'

[Spiritwalker]

Someone was saying on Facebook that they shop for fresh stuff on the local market. Cheaper and healthier so will market traders take the cards or will it be one or two 'approved' government outlets? Will they be acceptable on buses for people that do not have an Asda on their doorstep? Will Black Market dealers accept them in exchange for fags and alcohol? Will those needing special diets  have a special card? How much will all this cost the tax payer many who are in low paid jobs and claiming benefits in order that they have a living income?

I can see some Tory benefactors licking their lips at this. There could be some serious money to be made from 'approved' government

outlets.