not a chance and it makes me very happy that the left sided folk never got in, if that is a snap shot of their demographic,
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such cuts
Scum who done that yesterday filth in the bottom of shoe
NLA don't be so quick to judge you're better than that. Yes they went about it all wrong and the few that went too far and defaced war memorials have been arrested and dealt with but a lot of them just felt desperate. Imagine how desperate they must have been to have taken these measures, how bad must their lives been. Cuts, although Cameron says they're fair, do not affect everyone. Not everyone has to use the services that have been cut, not everyone has their lives in tatter but a lot of them that do had a hope that things could change, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak but now that hope has gone. Try being an unworking single dad who recently lost his wife to cancer, having 5 kids under 9 and have lost his mortgaged house due to not being able to afford the mortgage and having to live in a 3 bedroom private rented accomadation where the rent is £300 per week and after all bills he's left with £40 to feed 6 of them and that is about to be cut further. How desperate would you be?
I'm not condoning their actions but some of them probably felt they had no choice.
I reckon if I had 5 kids I'd have about £40 left each week to feed them. And I've got a job!! :-(
Never mind 40 pounds, I had to feed a family of four on negative income for six years of Labour rule. If I hadn't had the foresight, self discipline, not to mention all the sacrifices over 30 odd years, to save up for a rainy day, we would have been sleeping in cardboard boxes. Why do people today always think it's up to Government to bail them out when the going gets tough. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Saving, taking out insurance, don't live beyond your means etc. Having five kids under ten, not having adequate insurance or savings, and a mortgage, is asking for trouble and is a prime example of where society is going wrong.
Not everybody who claims benefits is a scrounging flâneur.
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it.
Can anyone re-post that radio interview that went viral not so long ago. I think it was James O'Brien (?) who interviewed that guy who was sobbing his heart out at how hard life was for him. I seem to remember when it was posted on here it illicited a lot of empathetic responses.
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such
I think for me this sums up a large part of why Labour failed.
NLA has played a very active and welcome part in what has been an extremely well thought out and argued debate on this thread on both sides. He's seen many of us attempt to contradict the accepted view that "Labour ruined the economy" by reference to properly sourced statistics, graphs, statements, etc showing, that for the most part, Laboured performed better or at least no worse than previous Tory governments or the coalition since. Yet despite the level of debate on here being by far the most detailed I've seen in years there still persists this perception that Labour can't be trusted with the economy.
Even accepting that many posters will not agree with every statistic or chart that doesn't support their own view, on both sides if the political spectrum, given the open resources available surely we should agree that running the economy is a bit more nuanced than Labour = always bad, Tory = always good?
Instead of pissing about with stupid stones and celebrities Labour should have been setting out clearly and concisely George Osbornes dismal failure to meet his own 2010 performance indicators for the economy and comparing this to their own pre-2007/8. Until Labour tackle that perception they will get nowhere.
To be clear this isn't a dig at NLA at all, it's just that his statement sums up what a lot of people think.
I do not believe that people vote according to a rational debate about the policies . There is a much bigger emotional component . This is why politicians on all sides look at focus groups and try to investigate what is going on 'under the radar'.
In my view we are now back to the pre 1992 state of affairs in British politics in terms of the perception of the economy.
Major won in 1992 because Kinnock was not trusted . Within five months we had black Wednesday and the pound was devalued . This event changed public opinion . By the time Blair came to power five years later the public voted him in by a landslide majority because the Tories had lost their reputation for economic competence .
This is particularly abhorrent considering we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of VE Day.
Let me be clear - I whole-heartedly agree with these words. It's an unspeakable act of desperate, abhorrent stupidity to deface a war memorial. I am sure few people would disagree with that.
But, I want to know who said the words.
Why is this important? Because it has been quoted, word-for-word on a number of news media sites. But it's been attributed to more than one person. For example, on the BBC News site, and on Daily Mail Online, it is quoted as a "Downing Street spokesman", which would seem fair enough. Obviously David Cameron would be furious if someone has committed damage like this; equally, he wouldn't be quoted personally, so it's left as a "spokesman" - perfectly proper. But on other websites, for example on ITV.com, and Sky News, it's part of a longer quote by Chief Superintendent Gerry Campbell, as follows: "We have launched an investigation into criminal damage to the Women in World War II Memorial. This is particularly abhorrent considering we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of VE Day. I am appealing to anyone who witnessed the criminal damage taking place or may have information regarding those involved to contact Police on 101 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111."
Why would different news media get exactly the same quote, but attributed to two entirely different, independent sources?
Does this seem like very carefully planned news management, by Lynton Crosby's team in Whitehall?
not a chance and it makes me very happy that the left sided folk never got in, if that is a snap shot of their demographic,
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such cuts
Scum who done that yesterday filth in the bottom of shoe
NLA don't be so quick to judge you're better than that. Yes they went about it all wrong and the few that went too far and defaced war memorials have been arrested and dealt with but a lot of them just felt desperate. Imagine how desperate they must have been to have taken these measures, how bad must their lives been. Cuts, although Cameron says they're fair, do not affect everyone. Not everyone has to use the services that have been cut, not everyone has their lives in tatter but a lot of them that do had a hope that things could change, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak but now that hope has gone. Try being an unworking single dad who recently lost his wife to cancer, having 5 kids under 9 and have lost his mortgaged house due to not being able to afford the mortgage and having to live in a 3 bedroom private rented accomadation where the rent is £300 per week and after all bills he's left with £40 to feed 6 of them and that is about to be cut further. How desperate would you be?
I'm not condoning their actions but some of them probably felt they had no choice.
I reckon if I had 5 kids I'd have about £40 left each week to feed them. And I've got a job!! :-(
Never mind 40 pounds, I had to feed a family of four on negative income for six years of Labour rule. If I hadn't had the foresight, self discipline, not to mention all the sacrifices over 30 odd years, to save up for a rainy day, we would have been sleeping in cardboard boxes. Why do people today always think it's up to Government to bail them out when the going gets tough. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Saving, taking out insurance, don't live beyond your means etc. Having five kids under ten, not having adequate insurance or savings, and a mortgage, is asking for trouble and is a prime example of where society is going wrong.
Not everybody who claims benefits is a scrounging flâneur. Have never suggested otherwise
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life. And they will never even bother to learn such qualities so long as a Generous Government is ready and waiting to bail them out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it. Yes indeed, and it is incumbent upon any responsible Government to ensure that Taxpayers money goes only to those that need it most, as opposed to lazy bastards.
The example I gave was a real one, he had house insurance but it only covered him in the event of his death, he tried to add his wife on after she got diagnosed as she was originally cured but they wouldn't allow it because of a pre-existing illness. The cancer returned and killed her in less than 2 months her youngest child was 11 month old. Eldest was 8. He had a very good well paid job and she worked earned money via Avon just as pocket money really he lost a lot of income whilst she was sick and when she was in remission they took out a small remortgage to get back on their feet and then bam it hits them again. This was one example of real people really struggling and I have many more, people I've seen using foodbanks and people we (the church) have delivered food hampers to at Christmas I'm not saying there are not people that are taking advantage of the benefit system but there are many that genuinely need it and shouldn't be demonised for that.
It's a mistake and a costly one that many people make unfortunately: insuring the life of the bread winner but not the carer. It creates huge problems. Everyone should always be able to afford to insure adequately the lives of both parties before they have kids, to do it the other way round is madness.
not a chance and it makes me very happy that the left sided folk never got in, if that is a snap shot of their demographic,
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such cuts
Scum who done that yesterday filth in the bottom of shoe
NLA don't be so quick to judge you're better than that. Yes they went about it all wrong and the few that went too far and defaced war memorials have been arrested and dealt with but a lot of them just felt desperate. Imagine how desperate they must have been to have taken these measures, how bad must their lives been. Cuts, although Cameron says they're fair, do not affect everyone. Not everyone has to use the services that have been cut, not everyone has their lives in tatter but a lot of them that do had a hope that things could change, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak but now that hope has gone. Try being an unworking single dad who recently lost his wife to cancer, having 5 kids under 9 and have lost his mortgaged house due to not being able to afford the mortgage and having to live in a 3 bedroom private rented accomadation where the rent is £300 per week and after all bills he's left with £40 to feed 6 of them and that is about to be cut further. How desperate would you be?
I'm not condoning their actions but some of them probably felt they had no choice.
I reckon if I had 5 kids I'd have about £40 left each week to feed them. And I've got a job!! :-(
Never mind 40 pounds, I had to feed a family of four on negative income for six years of Labour rule. If I hadn't had the foresight, self discipline, not to mention all the sacrifices over 30 odd years, to save up for a rainy day, we would have been sleeping in cardboard boxes. Why do people today always think it's up to Government to bail them out when the going gets tough. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Saving, taking out insurance, don't live beyond your means etc. Having five kids under ten, not having adequate insurance or savings, and a mortgage, is asking for trouble and is a prime example of where society is going wrong.
Not everybody who claims benefits is a scrounging flâneur. Have never suggested otherwise
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life. And they will never even bother to learn such qualities so long as a Generous Government is ready and waiting to bail them out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it. Yes indeed, and it is incumbent upon any responsible Government to ensure that Taxpayers money goes only to those that need it most, as opposed to lazy bastards.
Here's my view. And it's followed up with a question.
Everyone who has the ability to look after themselves should be provided with the means, incentive and encouragement to do so. So, that means that people should be paid a fair wage; they should be taxed at a rate proportional to their ability to make ends meet; and they should have no reason to turn down work on the basis that work doesn't pay (ie, someone should never be in a position where they are "better off" on benefits than doing a bit of extra work or more hours). If you *can* look after yourself and your family, you should.
However, there are some people who are unable to look after themselves. This includes people who are mentally or physically disabled, too young, too old, or permanently or temporarily incapacitated. These people *need* help, in the form of financial assistance. The assistance should be calculated only on their specific situation and need. But each person receiving (note: "receiving", never "earning") benefits should receive exactly the amount that is required in their circumstances.
So the question is this - why should there ever be a need for a "cap"? An arbitrary cap of £26,000 a year has been placed on those receiving benefit. But the cap makes no distinction between different individuals's specific needs.
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such
I think for me this sums up a large part of why Labour failed.
NLA has played a very active and welcome part in what has been an extremely well thought out and argued debate on this thread on both sides. He's seen many of us attempt to contradict the accepted view that "Labour ruined the economy" by reference to properly sourced statistics, graphs, statements, etc showing, that for the most part, Laboured performed better or at least no worse than previous Tory governments or the coalition since. Yet despite the level of debate on here being by far the most detailed I've seen in years there still persists this perception that Labour can't be trusted with the economy.
Even accepting that many posters will not agree with every statistic or chart that doesn't support their own view, on both sides if the political spectrum, given the open resources available surely we should agree that running the economy is a bit more nuanced than Labour = always bad, Tory = always good?
Instead of pissing about with stupid stones and celebrities Labour should have been setting out clearly and concisely George Osbornes dismal failure to meet his own 2010 performance indicators for the economy and comparing this to their own pre-2007/8. Until Labour tackle that perception they will get nowhere.
To be clear this isn't a dig at NLA at all, it's just that his statement sums up what a lot of people think.
I do not believe that people vote according to a rational debate about the policies . There is a much bigger emotional component . This is why politicians on all sides look at focus groups and try to investigate what is going on 'under the radar'.
I agree, hence why I said it's only part of the reason.
People are NOT rational beings and are subject to all sorts of bias and influences. When push came to shove maybe the 'undecideds' couldn't go with Miliband due to his own personal image (which was always going to be a massive issue to overcome) and the Labour party themselves didn't get anywhere near to addressing the voting public's inherent confirmation bias on the subject of the economy. We've had an excellent debate on here with both sides putting forward their views but if you were to dip into my local rag's comments board you would have seen that bias at the forefront of any discussion on the economy.
not a chance and it makes me very happy that the left sided folk never got in, if that is a snap shot of their demographic,
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such cuts
Scum who done that yesterday filth in the bottom of shoe
NLA don't be so quick to judge you're better than that. Yes they went about it all wrong and the few that went too far and defaced war memorials have been arrested and dealt with but a lot of them just felt desperate. Imagine how desperate they must have been to have taken these measures, how bad must their lives been. Cuts, although Cameron says they're fair, do not affect everyone. Not everyone has to use the services that have been cut, not everyone has their lives in tatter but a lot of them that do had a hope that things could change, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak but now that hope has gone. Try being an unworking single dad who recently lost his wife to cancer, having 5 kids under 9 and have lost his mortgaged house due to not being able to afford the mortgage and having to live in a 3 bedroom private rented accomadation where the rent is £300 per week and after all bills he's left with £40 to feed 6 of them and that is about to be cut further. How desperate would you be?
I'm not condoning their actions but some of them probably felt they had no choice.
I reckon if I had 5 kids I'd have about £40 left each week to feed them. And I've got a job!! :-(
Never mind 40 pounds, I had to feed a family of four on negative income for six years of Labour rule. If I hadn't had the foresight, self discipline, not to mention all the sacrifices over 30 odd years, to save up for a rainy day, we would have been sleeping in cardboard boxes. Why do people today always think it's up to Government to bail them out when the going gets tough. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Saving, taking out insurance, don't live beyond your means etc. Having five kids under ten, not having adequate insurance or savings, and a mortgage, is asking for trouble and is a prime example of where society is going wrong.
Not everybody who claims benefits is a scrounging flâneur. Have never suggested otherwise
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life. And they will never even bother to learn such qualities so long as a Generous Government is ready and waiting to bail them out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it. Yes indeed, and it is incumbent upon any responsible Government to ensure that Taxpayers money goes only to those that need it most, as opposed to lazy bastards.
Here's my view. And it's followed up with a question.
Everyone who has the ability to look after themselves should be provided with the means, incentive and encouragement to do so. So, that means that people should be paid a fair wage; they should be taxed at a rate proportional to their ability to make ends meet; and they should have no reason to turn down work on the basis that work doesn't pay (ie, someone should never be in a position where they are "better off" on benefits than doing a bit of extra work or more hours). If you *can* look after yourself and your family, you should. Cant disagree with that
However, there are some people who are unable to look after themselves. This includes people who are mentally or physically disabled, too young, too old, or permanently or temporarily incapacitated. These people *need* help, in the form of financial assistance. The assistance should be calculated only on their specific situation and need. But each person receiving (note: "receiving", never "earning") benefits should receive exactly the amount that is required in their circumstances. Or that. But assessing every person independently would be an administrative nightmare and very costly. Disabled people should be assessed along with their carers, and their needs provided for by the state.
So the question is this - why should there ever be a need for a "cap"? An arbitrary cap of £26,000 a year has been placed on those receiving benefit. But the cap makes no distinction between different individuals's specific needs.
My thoughts: You have to draw the line somewhere and 26,000 pounds is a lot of money (or do I live in a parallel universe)? More than I am currently earning and supporting my family of 4 on. If you don't set a cap, you present a system whereby certain people manipulate their personal circumstances in order to get as much as possible out of the government. You also create a disincentive for people to find work. The disabled and people with special needs should not be subjected to this cap and should be assessed individually. Some may require far more, some may have received an insurance pay out, so may not require as much.
Just a few points that have occurred to me overnight.
1. If you're going to protest about cuts and/or austerity and you're going to use graffiti to get your message across, wouldn't you use the words "cuts" or "austerity" in the graffiti?
2. If you're going to have the shameful audacity to spray graffiti on a WWII War Memorial, would you stop there? Or would you spray further graffiti on other walls and buildings? Have there been any photos of other buildings sprayed with red graffiti in and around Westminster yesterday?
3. The crass stupidity of such an act of wanton vandalism with thousands of cameraphone owners press photographers and TV cameras can surely only have been perpetrated by someone either immensely ignorant or utterly carefree about consequences. Yet we don't seem to have found any photos of the damage being caused, no-one's been arrested or questioned and no-one's claimed responsibility. We have seen the pictures splashed over the internet and TV since yesterday. Yet if you Google Charlie Gilmour you will see how hard it is to commit an act of vandalism in Westminster without being noticed.
4. If a Government wanted to create a mood-swing among the public against public demonstrations, using an agent provocateur to spray grafitti in this way would be the perfect opportunity. And, if it were done at the Government behest, I think the following would happen:
1. The graffiti would mention the "Tories", but not "cuts" - who in Government would want to see "cuts" splashed over the newspapers? 2. An agent provocateur would only spray graffiti in one, significant place; so we wouldn't see the same graffiti, by the same perpetrator on several buildings. And... 3. We wouldn't see pictures of it being done.
It's an interesting thought that it serves David Cameron and Michael Gove's purpose perfectly to see a limited, but terrible piece of vandalism splashed over the news at a time when they would most like to see anti-demonstration measures brought in as soon as possible. Maybe we'll see tougher police measures, draconian, "assumptive" laws and water cannon on the streets of London soon..?
Wow. Just fucking WOW.
Yes, that's just what I thought. I mean, it's obviously nasty, petulant protesters. But, aren't we going to look stupid jumping to that conclusions if it turns out not to be?
Not as stupid as when we find out the moon landings were filmed in Hollywood, it was the queen that crashed Dianas car and it was actually 2Pac, Elvis and JFK that flew the planes into the twin towers.
STOP PRESS.....STOP PRESS......STOP PRESS
Reports emerging that:
1. Ed's stone was originally carved with a list of highly compelling, cogent reasons to vote Labour. This was hijacked by Cameron and replaced with the set of banal, meaningless platitudes actually unveiled by poor old Ed
2. George Osborne replaced Ed's real bacon sandwich with AN OVERSIZED one (Yes!) so he would look a complete cock when he managed to miss his mouth. Apparently, it was a move inspired by William Hague, who had said that Ed wouldn't be able to find his arse without a map, and thought the same might be true of his mouth.
3. That bastard Cameron crept on to the Question Time stage and sawed a chunk out during Ed's session, thus ensuring that Ed looked a prick when he stumbled off it in a less than Prime Ministerial fashion.
Any more ridiculous conspiracy theories about the nasty old Tories?
not a chance and it makes me very happy that the left sided folk never got in, if that is a snap shot of their demographic,
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such cuts
Scum who done that yesterday filth in the bottom of shoe
NLA don't be so quick to judge you're better than that. Yes they went about it all wrong and the few that went too far and defaced war memorials have been arrested and dealt with but a lot of them just felt desperate. Imagine how desperate they must have been to have taken these measures, how bad must their lives been. Cuts, although Cameron says they're fair, do not affect everyone. Not everyone has to use the services that have been cut, not everyone has their lives in tatter but a lot of them that do had a hope that things could change, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak but now that hope has gone. Try being an unworking single dad who recently lost his wife to cancer, having 5 kids under 9 and have lost his mortgaged house due to not being able to afford the mortgage and having to live in a 3 bedroom private rented accomadation where the rent is £300 per week and after all bills he's left with £40 to feed 6 of them and that is about to be cut further. How desperate would you be?
I'm not condoning their actions but some of them probably felt they had no choice.
I reckon if I had 5 kids I'd have about £40 left each week to feed them. And I've got a job!! :-(
Never mind 40 pounds, I had to feed a family of four on negative income for six years of Labour rule. If I hadn't had the foresight, self discipline, not to mention all the sacrifices over 30 odd years, to save up for a rainy day, we would have been sleeping in cardboard boxes. Why do people today always think it's up to Government to bail them out when the going gets tough. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Saving, taking out insurance, don't live beyond your means etc. Having five kids under ten, not having adequate insurance or savings, and a mortgage, is asking for trouble and is a prime example of where society is going wrong.
Not everybody who claims benefits is a scrounging flâneur. Have never suggested otherwise
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life. And they will never even bother to learn such qualities so long as a Generous Government is ready and waiting to bail them out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it. Yes indeed, and it is incumbent upon any responsible Government to ensure that Taxpayers money goes only to those that need it most, as opposed to lazy bastards.
Here's my view. And it's followed up with a question.
Everyone who has the ability to look after themselves should be provided with the means, incentive and encouragement to do so. So, that means that people should be paid a fair wage; they should be taxed at a rate proportional to their ability to make ends meet; and they should have no reason to turn down work on the basis that work doesn't pay (ie, someone should never be in a position where they are "better off" on benefits than doing a bit of extra work or more hours). If you *can* look after yourself and your family, you should. Cant disagree with that
However, there are some people who are unable to look after themselves. This includes people who are mentally or physically disabled, too young, too old, or permanently or temporarily incapacitated. These people *need* help, in the form of financial assistance. The assistance should be calculated only on their specific situation and need. But each person receiving (note: "receiving", never "earning") benefits should receive exactly the amount that is required in their circumstances. Or that. But assessing every person independently would be an administrative nightmare and very costly. Disabled people should be assessed along with their carers, and their needs provided for by the state.
So the question is this - why should there ever be a need for a "cap"? An arbitrary cap of £26,000 a year has been placed on those receiving benefit. But the cap makes no distinction between different individuals's specific needs.
My thoughts: You have to draw the line somewhere and 26,000 pounds is a lot of money (or do I live in a parallel universe)? More than I am currently earning and supporting my family of 4 on. If you don't set a cap, you present a system whereby certain people manipulate their personal circumstances in order to get as much as possible out of the government. You also create a disincentive for people to find work. The disabled and people with special needs should not be subjected to this cap and should be assessed individually. Some may require far more, some may have received an insurance pay out, so may not require as much.
Very interesting. My view is this: if everyone is assessed on their own needs (or generalised, to reduce the administrative burden that you have highlighted), then everyone gets what they need. Which is fair. But if you then add a cap on top, it stops it being fair - no matter where that cap is. If someone is deemed to require, say £2,200 per month to meet their specific needs, that's £26,400 per annum. In this case, a cap of £26,000 would clearly not be "fair" to that person.
And wasn't someone who threw paint bomb someone famous son
Otis Ferry and six others stormed the chambers in 2004 during a debate over the Hunting Bill, disrupting democracy in progress. He's about as Tory and Establishment as you can get. Probably just high jinks like those Bully Boys used to get up to. You know, like smashing up restaurants. Perfectly civil behaviour.
not a chance and it makes me very happy that the left sided folk never got in, if that is a snap shot of their demographic,
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such cuts
Scum who done that yesterday filth in the bottom of shoe
NLA don't be so quick to judge you're better than that. Yes they went about it all wrong and the few that went too far and defaced war memorials have been arrested and dealt with but a lot of them just felt desperate. Imagine how desperate they must have been to have taken these measures, how bad must their lives been. Cuts, although Cameron says they're fair, do not affect everyone. Not everyone has to use the services that have been cut, not everyone has their lives in tatter but a lot of them that do had a hope that things could change, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak but now that hope has gone. Try being an unworking single dad who recently lost his wife to cancer, having 5 kids under 9 and have lost his mortgaged house due to not being able to afford the mortgage and having to live in a 3 bedroom private rented accomadation where the rent is £300 per week and after all bills he's left with £40 to feed 6 of them and that is about to be cut further. How desperate would you be?
I'm not condoning their actions but some of them probably felt they had no choice.
I reckon if I had 5 kids I'd have about £40 left each week to feed them. And I've got a job!! :-(
Never mind 40 pounds, I had to feed a family of four on negative income for six years of Labour rule. If I hadn't had the foresight, self discipline, not to mention all the sacrifices over 30 odd years, to save up for a rainy day, we would have been sleeping in cardboard boxes. Why do people today always think it's up to Government to bail them out when the going gets tough. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Saving, taking out insurance, don't live beyond your means etc. Having five kids under ten, not having adequate insurance or savings, and a mortgage, is asking for trouble and is a prime example of where society is going wrong.
Not everybody who claims benefits is a scrounging flâneur. Have never suggested otherwise
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life. And they will never even bother to learn such qualities so long as a Generous Government is ready and waiting to bail them out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it. Yes indeed, and it is incumbent upon any responsible Government to ensure that Taxpayers money goes only to those that need it most, as opposed to lazy bastards.
Here's my view. And it's followed up with a question.
Everyone who has the ability to look after themselves should be provided with the means, incentive and encouragement to do so. So, that means that people should be paid a fair wage; they should be taxed at a rate proportional to their ability to make ends meet; and they should have no reason to turn down work on the basis that work doesn't pay (ie, someone should never be in a position where they are "better off" on benefits than doing a bit of extra work or more hours). If you *can* look after yourself and your family, you should. Cant disagree with that
However, there are some people who are unable to look after themselves. This includes people who are mentally or physically disabled, too young, too old, or permanently or temporarily incapacitated. These people *need* help, in the form of financial assistance. The assistance should be calculated only on their specific situation and need. But each person receiving (note: "receiving", never "earning") benefits should receive exactly the amount that is required in their circumstances. Or that. But assessing every person independently would be an administrative nightmare and very costly. Disabled people should be assessed along with their carers, and their needs provided for by the state.
So the question is this - why should there ever be a need for a "cap"? An arbitrary cap of £26,000 a year has been placed on those receiving benefit. But the cap makes no distinction between different individuals's specific needs.
My thoughts: You have to draw the line somewhere and 26,000 pounds is a lot of money (or do I live in a parallel universe)? More than I am currently earning and supporting my family of 4 on. If you don't set a cap, you present a system whereby certain people manipulate their personal circumstances in order to get as much as possible out of the government. You also create a disincentive for people to find work. The disabled and people with special needs should not be subjected to this cap and should be assessed individually. Some may require far more, some may have received an insurance pay out, so may not require as much.
Very interesting. My view is this: if everyone is assessed on their own needs (or generalised, to reduce the administrative burden that you have highlighted), then everyone gets what they need. Which is fair. But if you then add a cap on top, it stops it being fair - no matter where that cap is. If someone is deemed to require, say £2,200 per month to meet their specific needs, that's £26,400 per annum. In this case, a cap of £26,000 would clearly not be "fair" to that person.
It is the "fair" issue on which we differ. If 26,000 is the maximum available, then that is the budget that you have to accommodate. That might mean having to shop at the market when they sell things off late in the day. It might mean growing your own veg and shopping predominantly from the discounted shelf at the supermarket (all of which I have much experience!) It might mean resisting the temptation of buying a 1 dollar cup of coffee in 7/11 as I did on more occasions that I care to remember. It's about "cutting your cloth according to your means" which is exactly what the Tory Government is trying to do. But we also need to as individuals during tough times.
not a chance and it makes me very happy that the left sided folk never got in, if that is a snap shot of their demographic,
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such cuts
Scum who done that yesterday filth in the bottom of shoe
NLA don't be so quick to judge you're better than that. Yes they went about it all wrong and the few that went too far and defaced war memorials have been arrested and dealt with but a lot of them just felt desperate. Imagine how desperate they must have been to have taken these measures, how bad must their lives been. Cuts, although Cameron says they're fair, do not affect everyone. Not everyone has to use the services that have been cut, not everyone has their lives in tatter but a lot of them that do had a hope that things could change, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak but now that hope has gone. Try being an unworking single dad who recently lost his wife to cancer, having 5 kids under 9 and have lost his mortgaged house due to not being able to afford the mortgage and having to live in a 3 bedroom private rented accomadation where the rent is £300 per week and after all bills he's left with £40 to feed 6 of them and that is about to be cut further. How desperate would you be?
I'm not condoning their actions but some of them probably felt they had no choice.
I reckon if I had 5 kids I'd have about £40 left each week to feed them. And I've got a job!! :-(
Never mind 40 pounds, I had to feed a family of four on negative income for six years of Labour rule. If I hadn't had the foresight, self discipline, not to mention all the sacrifices over 30 odd years, to save up for a rainy day, we would have been sleeping in cardboard boxes. Why do people today always think it's up to Government to bail them out when the going gets tough. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Saving, taking out insurance, don't live beyond your means etc. Having five kids under ten, not having adequate insurance or savings, and a mortgage, is asking for trouble and is a prime example of where society is going wrong.
Not everybody who claims benefits is a scrounging flâneur. Have never suggested otherwise
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life. And they will never even bother to learn such qualities so long as a Generous Government is ready and waiting to bail them out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it. Yes indeed, and it is incumbent upon any responsible Government to ensure that Taxpayers money goes only to those that need it most, as opposed to lazy bastards.
Here's my view. And it's followed up with a question.
Everyone who has the ability to look after themselves should be provided with the means, incentive and encouragement to do so. So, that means that people should be paid a fair wage; they should be taxed at a rate proportional to their ability to make ends meet; and they should have no reason to turn down work on the basis that work doesn't pay (ie, someone should never be in a position where they are "better off" on benefits than doing a bit of extra work or more hours). If you *can* look after yourself and your family, you should. Cant disagree with that
However, there are some people who are unable to look after themselves. This includes people who are mentally or physically disabled, too young, too old, or permanently or temporarily incapacitated. These people *need* help, in the form of financial assistance. The assistance should be calculated only on their specific situation and need. But each person receiving (note: "receiving", never "earning") benefits should receive exactly the amount that is required in their circumstances. Or that. But assessing every person independently would be an administrative nightmare and very costly. Disabled people should be assessed along with their carers, and their needs provided for by the state.
So the question is this - why should there ever be a need for a "cap"? An arbitrary cap of £26,000 a year has been placed on those receiving benefit. But the cap makes no distinction between different individuals's specific needs.
My thoughts: You have to draw the line somewhere and 26,000 pounds is a lot of money (or do I live in a parallel universe)? More than I am currently earning and supporting my family of 4 on. If you don't set a cap, you present a system whereby certain people manipulate their personal circumstances in order to get as much as possible out of the government. You also create a disincentive for people to find work. The disabled and people with special needs should not be subjected to this cap and should be assessed individually. Some may require far more, some may have received an insurance pay out, so may not require as much.
Very interesting. My view is this: if everyone is assessed on their own needs (or generalised, to reduce the administrative burden that you have highlighted), then everyone gets what they need. Which is fair. But if you then add a cap on top, it stops it being fair - no matter where that cap is. If someone is deemed to require, say £2,200 per month to meet their specific needs, that's £26,400 per annum. In this case, a cap of £26,000 would clearly not be "fair" to that person.
It is the "fair" issue on which we differ. If 26,000 is the maximum available, then that is the budget that you have to accommodate. That might mean having to shop at the market when they sell things off late in the day. It might mean growing your own veg and shopping predominantly from the discounted shelf at the supermarket (all of which I have much experience!) It might mean resisting the temptation of buying a 1 dollar cup of coffee in 7/11 as I did on more occasions that I care to remember. It's about "cutting your cloth according to your means" which is exactly what the Tory Government is trying to do. But we also need to as individuals during tough times.
I don't think you and I are a million miles apart! I just don't quite understand how, if we decide that a person has to have his income brought up to figure £x, then how can it be fair that the figure is capped at below £x?
On this benefits cap discussion, I like the idea that there is a figure at which the state says 'if you need the money, we can give you up to this much'. Whether or not £26,000 is the right or fair figure is a different discussion. I also agree with Chizz, anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they need more than the cap should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I can't envisage that a significant number of people fall into this category so it shouldn't be a case of whether we as a country can afford it, because we can.
not a chance and it makes me very happy that the left sided folk never got in, if that is a snap shot of their demographic,
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such cuts
Scum who done that yesterday filth in the bottom of shoe
NLA don't be so quick to judge you're better than that. Yes they went about it all wrong and the few that went too far and defaced war memorials have been arrested and dealt with but a lot of them just felt desperate. Imagine how desperate they must have been to have taken these measures, how bad must their lives been. Cuts, although Cameron says they're fair, do not affect everyone. Not everyone has to use the services that have been cut, not everyone has their lives in tatter but a lot of them that do had a hope that things could change, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak but now that hope has gone. Try being an unworking single dad who recently lost his wife to cancer, having 5 kids under 9 and have lost his mortgaged house due to not being able to afford the mortgage and having to live in a 3 bedroom private rented accomadation where the rent is £300 per week and after all bills he's left with £40 to feed 6 of them and that is about to be cut further. How desperate would you be?
I'm not condoning their actions but some of them probably felt they had no choice.
I reckon if I had 5 kids I'd have about £40 left each week to feed them. And I've got a job!! :-(
Never mind 40 pounds, I had to feed a family of four on negative income for six years of Labour rule. If I hadn't had the foresight, self discipline, not to mention all the sacrifices over 30 odd years, to save up for a rainy day, we would have been sleeping in cardboard boxes. Why do people today always think it's up to Government to bail them out when the going gets tough. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Saving, taking out insurance, don't live beyond your means etc. Having five kids under ten, not having adequate insurance or savings, and a mortgage, is asking for trouble and is a prime example of where society is going wrong.
Not everybody who claims benefits is a scrounging flâneur. Have never suggested otherwise
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life. And they will never even bother to learn such qualities so long as a Generous Government is ready and waiting to bail them out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it. Yes indeed, and it is incumbent upon any responsible Government to ensure that Taxpayers money goes only to those that need it most, as opposed to lazy bastards.
Here's my view. And it's followed up with a question.
Everyone who has the ability to look after themselves should be provided with the means, incentive and encouragement to do so. So, that means that people should be paid a fair wage; they should be taxed at a rate proportional to their ability to make ends meet; and they should have no reason to turn down work on the basis that work doesn't pay (ie, someone should never be in a position where they are "better off" on benefits than doing a bit of extra work or more hours). If you *can* look after yourself and your family, you should. Cant disagree with that
However, there are some people who are unable to look after themselves. This includes people who are mentally or physically disabled, too young, too old, or permanently or temporarily incapacitated. These people *need* help, in the form of financial assistance. The assistance should be calculated only on their specific situation and need. But each person receiving (note: "receiving", never "earning") benefits should receive exactly the amount that is required in their circumstances. Or that. But assessing every person independently would be an administrative nightmare and very costly. Disabled people should be assessed along with their carers, and their needs provided for by the state.
So the question is this - why should there ever be a need for a "cap"? An arbitrary cap of £26,000 a year has been placed on those receiving benefit. But the cap makes no distinction between different individuals's specific needs.
My thoughts: You have to draw the line somewhere and 26,000 pounds is a lot of money (or do I live in a parallel universe)? More than I am currently earning and supporting my family of 4 on. If you don't set a cap, you present a system whereby certain people manipulate their personal circumstances in order to get as much as possible out of the government. You also create a disincentive for people to find work. The disabled and people with special needs should not be subjected to this cap and should be assessed individually. Some may require far more, some may have received an insurance pay out, so may not require as much.
Very interesting. My view is this: if everyone is assessed on their own needs (or generalised, to reduce the administrative burden that you have highlighted), then everyone gets what they need. Which is fair. But if you then add a cap on top, it stops it being fair - no matter where that cap is. If someone is deemed to require, say £2,200 per month to meet their specific needs, that's £26,400 per annum. In this case, a cap of £26,000 would clearly not be "fair" to that person.
It is the "fair" issue on which we differ. If 26,000 is the maximum available, then that is the budget that you have to accommodate. That might mean having to shop at the market when they sell things off late in the day. It might mean growing your own veg and shopping predominantly from the discounted shelf at the supermarket (all of which I have much experience!) It might mean resisting the temptation of buying a 1 dollar cup of coffee in 7/11 as I did on more occasions that I care to remember. It's about "cutting your cloth according to your means" which is exactly what the Tory Government is trying to do. But we also need to as individuals during tough times.
I completely agree with you, however it is unfair in the way it isn't geographically assessed or assessed on the family size. 23k which is what it is to be cut to for a 6 person family living in London is not enough for them to live on whereas 23k for a 2 person family living in hull is way too much. I'm not saying the system is wrong I'm saying its flawed.
not a chance and it makes me very happy that the left sided folk never got in, if that is a snap shot of their demographic,
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such cuts
Scum who done that yesterday filth in the bottom of shoe
NLA don't be so quick to judge you're better than that. Yes they went about it all wrong and the few that went too far and defaced war memorials have been arrested and dealt with but a lot of them just felt desperate. Imagine how desperate they must have been to have taken these measures, how bad must their lives been. Cuts, although Cameron says they're fair, do not affect everyone. Not everyone has to use the services that have been cut, not everyone has their lives in tatter but a lot of them that do had a hope that things could change, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak but now that hope has gone. Try being an unworking single dad who recently lost his wife to cancer, having 5 kids under 9 and have lost his mortgaged house due to not being able to afford the mortgage and having to live in a 3 bedroom private rented accomadation where the rent is £300 per week and after all bills he's left with £40 to feed 6 of them and that is about to be cut further. How desperate would you be?
I'm not condoning their actions but some of them probably felt they had no choice.
I reckon if I had 5 kids I'd have about £40 left each week to feed them. And I've got a job!! :-(
Never mind 40 pounds, I had to feed a family of four on negative income for six years of Labour rule. If I hadn't had the foresight, self discipline, not to mention all the sacrifices over 30 odd years, to save up for a rainy day, we would have been sleeping in cardboard boxes. Why do people today always think it's up to Government to bail them out when the going gets tough. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Saving, taking out insurance, don't live beyond your means etc. Having five kids under ten, not having adequate insurance or savings, and a mortgage, is asking for trouble and is a prime example of where society is going wrong.
Not everybody who claims benefits is a scrounging flâneur. Have never suggested otherwise
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life. And they will never even bother to learn such qualities so long as a Generous Government is ready and waiting to bail them out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it. Yes indeed, and it is incumbent upon any responsible Government to ensure that Taxpayers money goes only to those that need it most, as opposed to lazy bastards.
Here's my view. And it's followed up with a question.
Everyone who has the ability to look after themselves should be provided with the means, incentive and encouragement to do so. So, that means that people should be paid a fair wage; they should be taxed at a rate proportional to their ability to make ends meet; and they should have no reason to turn down work on the basis that work doesn't pay (ie, someone should never be in a position where they are "better off" on benefits than doing a bit of extra work or more hours). If you *can* look after yourself and your family, you should. Cant disagree with that
However, there are some people who are unable to look after themselves. This includes people who are mentally or physically disabled, too young, too old, or permanently or temporarily incapacitated. These people *need* help, in the form of financial assistance. The assistance should be calculated only on their specific situation and need. But each person receiving (note: "receiving", never "earning") benefits should receive exactly the amount that is required in their circumstances. Or that. But assessing every person independently would be an administrative nightmare and very costly. Disabled people should be assessed along with their carers, and their needs provided for by the state.
So the question is this - why should there ever be a need for a "cap"? An arbitrary cap of £26,000 a year has been placed on those receiving benefit. But the cap makes no distinction between different individuals's specific needs.
My thoughts: You have to draw the line somewhere and 26,000 pounds is a lot of money (or do I live in a parallel universe)? More than I am currently earning and supporting my family of 4 on. If you don't set a cap, you present a system whereby certain people manipulate their personal circumstances in order to get as much as possible out of the government. You also create a disincentive for people to find work. The disabled and people with special needs should not be subjected to this cap and should be assessed individually. Some may require far more, some may have received an insurance pay out, so may not require as much.
Is that 26k if no one works within that family group
It's maximum benefits any one family can get including housing benefit, council tax benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, income support and so on.
You put a cap on it because far too many were abusing the system under labour and lazy oiks who had 5 kids thought a pay rise was having another one
The British people voted Conservative because of these measures not because it wa a bad thing
£26,000 can go quite a long way if you spend it wisely
If you *need* more than £500 a week, you should be given that amount. If you don't *need* it, you shouldn't be given it. The £26,000 - which will drop, dramatically, soon - cap is not necessary, so long as all people in *need* are provided with what they need.
The minuscule amount of benefit fraud should be dealt with firmly. And that might mean imprisonment. Clamping down on benefit fraud should be an immediate priority; probably soon after clamping down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
But coming up with an arbitrary cap - whatever the number is - is wrong, for all the obvious reasons.
You put a cap on it because far too many were abusing the system under labour and lazy oiks who had 5 kids thought a pay rise was having another one
The British people voted Conservative because of these measures not because it wa a bad thing
£26,000 can go quite a long way if you spend it wisely
If you *need* more than £500 a week, you should be given that amount. If you don't *need* it, you shouldn't be given it. The £26,000 - which will drop, dramatically, soon - cap is not necessary, so long as all people in *need* are provided with what they need.
The minuscule amount of benefit fraud should be dealt with firmly. And that might mean imprisonment. Clamping down on benefit fraud should be an immediate priority; probably soon after clamping down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
But coming up with an arbitrary cap - whatever the number is - is wrong, for all the obvious reasons.
So who will define what *need* equates too. I'm sure many non-working families will claim they *need* a decent TV, Sky and internet connection.
I sent a picture of that war memorial with the graffiti on it to a bunch of mates on WhatsApp earlier - they're mostly left leaning/Labour supporters. One of them (who only arrived in this country 3 years ago from DR Congo) replied with "Well, it is a free country I guess"
Thats the sort of shite being spouted at the moment by some on the left. How liberal.
Comments
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it.
In my view we are now back to the pre 1992 state of affairs in British politics in terms of the perception of the economy.
Major won in 1992 because Kinnock was not trusted . Within five months we had black Wednesday and the pound was devalued . This event changed public opinion . By the time Blair came to power five years later the public voted him in by a landslide majority because the Tories had lost their reputation for economic competence .
Let me be clear - I whole-heartedly agree with these words. It's an unspeakable act of desperate, abhorrent stupidity to deface a war memorial. I am sure few people would disagree with that.
But, I want to know who said the words.
Why is this important? Because it has been quoted, word-for-word on a number of news media sites. But it's been attributed to more than one person. For example, on the BBC News site, and on Daily Mail Online, it is quoted as a "Downing Street spokesman", which would seem fair enough. Obviously David Cameron would be furious if someone has committed damage like this; equally, he wouldn't be quoted personally, so it's left as a "spokesman" - perfectly proper. But on other websites, for example on ITV.com, and Sky News, it's part of a longer quote by Chief Superintendent Gerry Campbell, as follows: "We have launched an investigation into criminal damage to the Women in World War II Memorial. This is particularly abhorrent considering we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of VE Day. I am appealing to anyone who witnessed the criminal damage taking place or may have information regarding those involved to contact Police on 101 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111."
Why would different news media get exactly the same quote, but attributed to two entirely different, independent sources?
Does this seem like very carefully planned news management, by Lynton Crosby's team in Whitehall?
Hard to imagine his desperation (unless he's upset they've not made a decent album since Dark Side of the Moon)
Everyone who has the ability to look after themselves should be provided with the means, incentive and encouragement to do so. So, that means that people should be paid a fair wage; they should be taxed at a rate proportional to their ability to make ends meet; and they should have no reason to turn down work on the basis that work doesn't pay (ie, someone should never be in a position where they are "better off" on benefits than doing a bit of extra work or more hours). If you *can* look after yourself and your family, you should.
However, there are some people who are unable to look after themselves. This includes people who are mentally or physically disabled, too young, too old, or permanently or temporarily incapacitated. These people *need* help, in the form of financial assistance. The assistance should be calculated only on their specific situation and need. But each person receiving (note: "receiving", never "earning") benefits should receive exactly the amount that is required in their circumstances.
So the question is this - why should there ever be a need for a "cap"? An arbitrary cap of £26,000 a year has been placed on those receiving benefit. But the cap makes no distinction between different individuals's specific needs.
People are NOT rational beings and are subject to all sorts of bias and influences. When push came to shove maybe the 'undecideds' couldn't go with Miliband due to his own personal image (which was always going to be a massive issue to overcome) and the Labour party themselves didn't get anywhere near to addressing the voting public's inherent confirmation bias on the subject of the economy. We've had an excellent debate on here with both sides putting forward their views but if you were to dip into my local rag's comments board you would have seen that bias at the forefront of any discussion on the economy.
You have to draw the line somewhere and 26,000 pounds is a lot of money (or do I live in a parallel universe)? More than I am currently earning and supporting my family of 4 on.
If you don't set a cap, you present a system whereby certain people manipulate their personal circumstances in order to get as much as possible out of the government.
You also create a disincentive for people to find work.
The disabled and people with special needs should not be subjected to this cap and should be assessed individually. Some may require far more, some may have received an insurance pay out, so may not require as much.
Reports emerging that:
1. Ed's stone was originally carved with a list of highly compelling, cogent reasons to vote Labour. This was hijacked by Cameron and replaced with the set of banal, meaningless platitudes actually unveiled by poor old Ed
2. George Osborne replaced Ed's real bacon sandwich with AN OVERSIZED one (Yes!) so he would look a complete cock when he managed to miss his mouth. Apparently, it was a move inspired by William Hague, who had said that Ed wouldn't be able to find his arse without a map, and thought the same might be true of his mouth.
3. That bastard Cameron crept on to the Question Time stage and sawed a chunk out during Ed's session, thus ensuring that Ed looked a prick when he stumbled off it in a less than Prime Ministerial fashion.
Any more ridiculous conspiracy theories about the nasty old Tories?
Otis Ferry and six others stormed the chambers in 2004 during a debate over the Hunting Bill, disrupting democracy in progress. He's about as Tory and Establishment as you can get. Probably just high jinks like those Bully Boys used to get up to. You know, like smashing up restaurants. Perfectly civil behaviour.
It's about "cutting your cloth according to your means" which is exactly what the Tory Government is trying to do. But we also need to as individuals during tough times.
That's a rhetorical question, by the way!
On this benefits cap discussion, I like the idea that there is a figure at which the state says 'if you need the money, we can give you up to this much'. Whether or not £26,000 is the right or fair figure is a different discussion. I also agree with Chizz, anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they need more than the cap should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I can't envisage that a significant number of people fall into this category so it shouldn't be a case of whether we as a country can afford it, because we can.
The British people voted Conservative because of these measures not because it wa a bad thing
£26,000 can go quite a long way if you spend it wisely
And it's going down to 23k.
The minuscule amount of benefit fraud should be dealt with firmly. And that might mean imprisonment. Clamping down on benefit fraud should be an immediate priority; probably soon after clamping down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
But coming up with an arbitrary cap - whatever the number is - is wrong, for all the obvious reasons.
Thats the sort of shite being spouted at the moment by some on the left. How liberal.