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.
Wow! I never thought I would see a link to a racist right wing shit rag like that on this site!
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.
Wow! I never thought I would see a link to a racist right wing shit rag like that on this site!
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.
QA: Your probably right. But I guess the more complex you make the system, the more it costs to administer. The Governments argument would probably be, "if you cant afford to live in London, move to Hull where you'll get the same benefits, but housing, groceries and the general cost of living is cheaper". I know it sounds tough and harsh, but we need to get out of this mindset that it's the Governments job to provide us with just the life we want. It's not, it's their job to provide a safety net, to ensure that people don't starve or die of hypothermia and that their basic healthcare is covered. It's our job to somehow create the life we want, however difficult or unfair it may sometimes feel.
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 guess it's not for you and me to decide; it should be left to the policy-makers and civil servants to determine. I don't think a "decent TV" or Sky are necessities, but a decent internet connection most certainly is.
So lets be generous and accept that no Labour supporters were present at these demonstrations. To which political party would these socialist scumbags align? Here it would be Labour or the Greens. Is there an official Communist Party in the UK, or are we saying that the majority of them would just not vote? I can imagine Russell Brand as being just the type of person who would attend such a protest and we all know who he supported in the end!
Having friends amongst these communities, they are generally disassociated with the whole system. Some are hippies, some are very normal. The vast majority are pacifist and anti-capitalist, it is a small minority that is very easy to focus on. Especially to a press dominated by a group of rich old men, lacking any kind of diversity. They belong to no party and see it as pointless to even engage in the process. But as you said, you 'imagine' and I think you are confusing green and labour supporters with people who are against the conservatives.
I have been to rallies and stayed at a tree protest site. I have seen the police use tactics in that disgust me as much as the desecration of war memorials. A state that can sanction an undercover operation that affects the life of an innocent as has happened, with the fathering of children by undercover officers who have subsequently vanished, also has issues. Dirty tactics by the police/state for political purpose isn't something new, it has been going on forever. Look at all the corruption involved in Hillsborough, the miners strike, no convictions for bankers/press hackers and now, potentially, the Bradford fire.
Personally, I think some people are scum bags no matter their political persuasion. It just seems it is those that can afford a good lawyer or are politically connected that don't go to prison.
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.
I'm not sure what point you are making here. That you have a mate who thought this kind of free speech is ok, therefore left wing politics is bad?
The reality is that you can find right wing libertarian folk who would also think this action is ok since it is an expression of free speech i the same way your mate does.
This isn't a matter of left vs right. Politics is not that 2 dimensional. These were anarchists. Anarchists are neither left or right, they are, well, anarchists. They want destabilise whoever is in power. They want absolute rights to do as they please. They would see any act of business (this would include any form of employment or paying for a service) as an act of oppression. Other people's sensibilities are never their problem. You find the same views spouted by the extreme parts of SWP as you do EDL. You cannot say that this is either a left or a right. It is broadly a philosophy of self, which often leads to a philosophy of hate.
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 guess it's not for you and me to decide; it should be left to the policy-makers and civil servants to determine. I don't think a "decent TV" or Sky are necessities, but a decent internet connection most certainly is.
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 guess it's not for you and me to decide; it should be left to the policy-makers and civil servants to determine. I don't think a "decent TV" or Sky are necessities, but a decent internet connection most certainly is.
Agree, nothing worse than buffering on the vinegar strokes.
Benefits are a massive headache for whichever people are in power and there are many horrible situations that people can find themselves in and also other people will find a way to exploit any system that is in place.
The thing that I cant support and don't agree with is a benefit system in which people can get more income than they would if they were working
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 guess it's not for you and me to decide; it should be left to the policy-makers and civil servants to determine. I don't think a "decent TV" or Sky are necessities, but a decent internet connection most certainly is.
How about a top of the range mobile phone ?
Well you might think that's a necessity - and if you do, you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But my view is that - unlike a decent broadband connection - a top-of-the-range mobile phone is not a necessity.
So lets be generous and accept that no Labour supporters were present at these demonstrations. To which political party would these socialist scumbags align? Here it would be Labour or the Greens. Is there an official Communist Party in the UK, or are we saying that the majority of them would just not vote? I can imagine Russell Brand as being just the type of person who would attend such a protest and we all know who he supported in the end!
Having friends amongst these communities, they are generally disassociated with the whole system. Some are hippies, some are very normal. The vast majority are pacifist and anti-capitalist, it is a small minority that is very easy to focus on. Especially to a press dominated by a group of rich old men, lacking any kind of diversity. They belong to no party and see it as pointless to even engage in the process. But as you said, you 'imagine' and I think you are confusing green and labour supporters with people who are against the conservatives.
I have been to rallies and stayed at a tree protest site. I have seen the police use tactics in that disgust me as much as the desecration of war memorials. A state that can sanction an undercover operation that affects the life of an innocent as has happened, with the fathering of children by undercover officers who have subsequently vanished, also has issues. Dirty tactics by the police/state for political purpose isn't something new, it has been going on forever. Look at all the corruption involved in Hillsborough, the miners strike, no convictions for bankers/press hackers and now, potentially, the Bradford fire.
Personally, I think some people are scum bags no matter their political persuasion. It just seems it is those that can afford a good lawyer or are politically connected that don't go to prison.
But unless each and everyone of them was interviewed, we just don't know. I hope there is a thorough analysis of social media to discover how so many troops were rallied so quickly. Who arranged this? FWIW this is what the International Business Times had to say:-
"The protesters appear to be a mixed group of Labour supporters, Scottish National Party (SNP) supporters and students. Opposing rallies by Britain’s far-right, controversial English Defense League and their rival Unite Against Fascism were held on Saturday in London, but it is unclear if elements of either rally have melded with the anti-Tory demonstrations."
So lets be generous and accept that no Labour supporters were present at these demonstrations. To which political party would these socialist scumbags align? Here it would be Labour or the Greens. Is there an official Communist Party in the UK, or are we saying that the majority of them would just not vote? I can imagine Russell Brand as being just the type of person who would attend such a protest and we all know who he supported in the end!
Having friends amongst these communities, they are generally disassociated with the whole system. Some are hippies, some are very normal. The vast majority are pacifist and anti-capitalist, it is a small minority that is very easy to focus on. Especially to a press dominated by a group of rich old men, lacking any kind of diversity. They belong to no party and see it as pointless to even engage in the process. But as you said, you 'imagine' and I think you are confusing green and labour supporters with people who are against the conservatives.
I have been to rallies and stayed at a tree protest site. I have seen the police use tactics in that disgust me as much as the desecration of war memorials. A state that can sanction an undercover operation that affects the life of an innocent as has happened, with the fathering of children by undercover officers who have subsequently vanished, also has issues. Dirty tactics by the police/state for political purpose isn't something new, it has been going on forever. Look at all the corruption involved in Hillsborough, the miners strike, no convictions for bankers/press hackers and now, potentially, the Bradford fire.
Personally, I think some people are scum bags no matter their political persuasion. It just seems it is those that can afford a good lawyer or are politically connected that don't go to prison.
But unless each and everyone of them was interviewed, we just don't know. I hope there is a thorough analysis of social media to discover how so many troops were rallied so quickly. Who arranged this? FWIW this is what the International Business Times had to say:-
"The protesters appear to be a mixed group of Labour supporters, Scottish National Party (SNP) supporters and students. Opposing rallies by Britain’s far-right, controversial English Defense League and their rival Unite Against Fascism were held on Saturday in London, but it is unclear if elements of either rally have melded with the anti-Tory demonstrations."
that just sounds like lazy reporting to me. "Labour lost the election so it must their supporters that are doing it" The anarchists and anti-capitalists don't engage with party politics for the most part.
I've said this before but I'll say it again. Those that can work should work. Those cheating either benefits or tax should feel the full force of the law. Those in genuine need through either being out of work and genuinely unable to find work or through disability or sickness should be looked after and not demonised. This is a great and compassionate country and we do ourselves great disservice by not recognising the difference between the groups mentioned above.
I've said this before but I'll say it again. Those that can work should work. Those cheating either benefits or tax should feel the full force of the law. Those in genuine need through either being out of work and genuinely unable to find work or through disability or sickness should be looked after and not demonised. This is a great and compassionate country and we do ourselves great disservice by not recognising the difference between the groups mentioned above.
I don't think any Tory would disagree with you, so what are we arguing about?
I've said this before but I'll say it again. Those that can work should work. Those cheating either benefits or tax should feel the full force of the law. Those in genuine need through either being out of work and genuinely unable to find work or through disability or sickness should be looked after and not demonised. This is a great and compassionate country and we do ourselves great disservice by not recognising the difference between the groups mentioned above.
I don't think any Tory would disagree with you, so what are we arguing about?
I agree. I know many Tories. Even some nice ones ;0). What I'm saying is that a one size fits all policy harms a good many genuine claimants as it sanctions those with suspect claims. The bedroom tax is a fine example. Many disabled people forced to pay when the "spare" room was genuinely needed to keep equipment and to accommodate carers. Not just Tory policy. I think the proposed mansion tax from labour was just as blunt an instrument. It's sound bite politics and does us as a nation little credit.
I don't think a one-size fits all policy can work at all. What a single out-of-work father of four in West London needs in terms of both money and support is very different to what a disabled pensioner in Sunderland needs. This sort of thing really needs to be handled by councils or at least give them a lot more autonomy.
Also, people, you can't just flag posts just because you disagree with someone's opinion, please don't waste any more of the mods' time or this thread will just be shut, which none of us really want now we're getting some decent discussion.
So lets be generous and accept that no Labour supporters were present at these demonstrations. To which political party would these socialist scumbags align? Here it would be Labour or the Greens. Is there an official Communist Party in the UK, or are we saying that the majority of them would just not vote? I can imagine Russell Brand as being just the type of person who would attend such a protest and we all know who he supported in the end!
Having friends amongst these communities, they are generally disassociated with the whole system. Some are hippies, some are very normal. The vast majority are pacifist and anti-capitalist, it is a small minority that is very easy to focus on. Especially to a press dominated by a group of rich old men, lacking any kind of diversity. They belong to no party and see it as pointless to even engage in the process. But as you said, you 'imagine' and I think you are confusing green and labour supporters with people who are against the conservatives.
I have been to rallies and stayed at a tree protest site. I have seen the police use tactics in that disgust me as much as the desecration of war memorials. A state that can sanction an undercover operation that affects the life of an innocent as has happened, with the fathering of children by undercover officers who have subsequently vanished, also has issues. Dirty tactics by the police/state for political purpose isn't something new, it has been going on forever. Look at all the corruption involved in Hillsborough, the miners strike, no convictions for bankers/press hackers and now, potentially, the Bradford fire.
Personally, I think some people are scum bags no matter their political persuasion. It just seems it is those that can afford a good lawyer or are politically connected that don't go to prison.
But unless each and everyone of them was interviewed, we just don't know. I hope there is a thorough analysis of social media to discover how so many troops were rallied so quickly. Who arranged this? FWIW this is what the International Business Times had to say:-
"The protesters appear to be a mixed group of Labour supporters, Scottish National Party (SNP) supporters and students. Opposing rallies by Britain’s far-right, controversial English Defense League and their rival Unite Against Fascism were held on Saturday in London, but it is unclear if elements of either rally have melded with the anti-Tory demonstrations."
that just sounds like lazy reporting to me. "Labour lost the election so it must their supporters that are doing it" The anarchists and anti-capitalists don't engage with party politics for the most part.
Bit of a coincidence they decided to have a go just one day after the election result then isn't it....
when benefits become a lifestyle choice then we have a problem. Too many people have been brought up in a system where claiming benefits is 2nd nature - that's where the problem lies.
People who genuinely need help, especially those with sick or disabled family members should never be left to suffer without a safety net.
However if you can afford new TV's, iPad, holidays, ciggies and drink then clearly you are receiving too many benefits.
The quote from the article just states there were several different rallies in London. It also said there were a lot of different agenda's. Of course we will not know, but the socialist scumbags you refer to in your previous post, I'm taking to be the type who defaced the memorial, would more than likely disassociate themselves from all political parties. An association you inferred with Russell Brand. So if we will never know you should never have made it.
The reason there was so many people at short notice is that a large number of people voted against the conservatives and a significant number of those are just as emotive as you are (but a bit closer, judging by your handle). I don't think you can tar everyone with the same brush. A lot of people there would of seen the actions of a minority as counter-productive and repulsive. Equally I highly doubt the people who organised the numbers set the agenda of such a despicable act.
So lets be generous and accept that no Labour supporters were present at these demonstrations. To which political party would these socialist scumbags align? Here it would be Labour or the Greens. Is there an official Communist Party in the UK, or are we saying that the majority of them would just not vote? I can imagine Russell Brand as being just the type of person who would attend such a protest and we all know who he supported in the end!
Having friends amongst these communities, they are generally disassociated with the whole system. Some are hippies, some are very normal. The vast majority are pacifist and anti-capitalist, it is a small minority that is very easy to focus on. Especially to a press dominated by a group of rich old men, lacking any kind of diversity. They belong to no party and see it as pointless to even engage in the process. But as you said, you 'imagine' and I think you are confusing green and labour supporters with people who are against the conservatives.
I have been to rallies and stayed at a tree protest site. I have seen the police use tactics in that disgust me as much as the desecration of war memorials. A state that can sanction an undercover operation that affects the life of an innocent as has happened, with the fathering of children by undercover officers who have subsequently vanished, also has issues. Dirty tactics by the police/state for political purpose isn't something new, it has been going on forever. Look at all the corruption involved in Hillsborough, the miners strike, no convictions for bankers/press hackers and now, potentially, the Bradford fire.
Personally, I think some people are scum bags no matter their political persuasion. It just seems it is those that can afford a good lawyer or are politically connected that don't go to prison.
But unless each and everyone of them was interviewed, we just don't know. I hope there is a thorough analysis of social media to discover how so many troops were rallied so quickly. Who arranged this? FWIW this is what the International Business Times had to say:-
"The protesters appear to be a mixed group of Labour supporters, Scottish National Party (SNP) supporters and students. Opposing rallies by Britain’s far-right, controversial English Defense League and their rival Unite Against Fascism were held on Saturday in London, but it is unclear if elements of either rally have melded with the anti-Tory demonstrations."
I don't think a one-size fits all policy can work at all. What a single out-of-work father of four in West London needs in terms of both money and support is very different to what a disabled pensioner in Sunderland needs. This sort of thing really needs to be handled by councils or at least give them a lot more autonomy.
Also, people, you can't just flag posts just because you disagree with someone's opinion, please don't waste any more of the mods' time or this thread will just be shut, which none of us really want now we're getting some decent discussion.
It is perfectly ok to flag a post that contains a link to a racist site. Don't link to that site again. You have been warned now.
I've said this before but I'll say it again. Those that can work should work. Those cheating either benefits or tax should feel the full force of the law. Those in genuine need through either being out of work and genuinely unable to find work or through disability or sickness should be looked after and not demonised. This is a great and compassionate country and we do ourselves great disservice by not recognising the difference between the groups mentioned above.
I don't think any Tory would disagree with you, so what are we arguing about?
I agree. I know many Tories. Even some nice ones ;0). What I'm saying is that a one size fits all policy harms a good many genuine claimants as it sanctions those with suspect claims. The bedroom tax is a fine example. Many disabled people forced to pay when the "spare" room was genuinely needed to keep equipment and to accommodate carers. Not just Tory policy. I think the proposed mansion tax from labour was just as blunt an instrument. It's sound bite politics and does us as a nation little credit.
But you obviously can't tailor policy according to each and every individuals specific needs. What very often happens when somebody is particularly hard hit because of a change in one policy, is that they very often fall into another bracket in another benefit which offsets their losses. But of course this sort of thing doesn't get mentioned in the scaremongering press. It's never going to be a completely fair system and some people are always going to feel hard done by, whilst others laugh all the way to the bank.
Comments
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.
QA:
Your probably right. But I guess the more complex you make the system, the more it costs to administer. The Governments argument would probably be, "if you cant afford to live in London, move to Hull where you'll get the same benefits, but housing, groceries and the general cost of living is cheaper". I know it sounds tough and harsh, but we need to get out of this mindset that it's the Governments job to provide us with just the life we want. It's not, it's their job to provide a safety net, to ensure that people don't starve or die of hypothermia and that their basic healthcare is covered. It's our job to somehow create the life we want, however difficult or unfair it may sometimes feel.
I have been to rallies and stayed at a tree protest site. I have seen the police use tactics in that disgust me as much as the desecration of war memorials.
A state that can sanction an undercover operation that affects the life of an innocent as has happened, with the fathering of children by undercover officers who have subsequently vanished, also has issues. Dirty tactics by the police/state for political purpose isn't something new, it has been going on forever. Look at all the corruption involved in Hillsborough, the miners strike, no convictions for bankers/press hackers and now, potentially, the Bradford fire.
Personally, I think some people are scum bags no matter their political persuasion. It just seems it is those that can afford a good lawyer or are politically connected that don't go to prison.
The reality is that you can find right wing libertarian folk who would also think this action is ok since it is an expression of free speech i the same way your mate does.
This isn't a matter of left vs right. Politics is not that 2 dimensional. These were anarchists. Anarchists are neither left or right, they are, well, anarchists. They want destabilise whoever is in power. They want absolute rights to do as they please. They would see any act of business (this would include any form of employment or paying for a service) as an act of oppression. Other people's sensibilities are never their problem. You find the same views spouted by the extreme parts of SWP as you do EDL. You cannot say that this is either a left or a right. It is broadly a philosophy of self, which often leads to a philosophy of hate.
The thing that I cant support and don't agree with is a benefit system in which people can get more income than they would if they were working
FWIW this is what the International Business Times had to say:-
"The protesters appear to be a mixed group of Labour supporters, Scottish National Party (SNP) supporters and students. Opposing rallies by Britain’s far-right, controversial English Defense League and their rival Unite Against Fascism were held on Saturday in London, but it is unclear if elements of either rally have melded with the anti-Tory demonstrations."
Those that can work should work. Those cheating either benefits or tax should feel the full force of the law. Those in genuine need through either being out of work and genuinely unable to find work or through disability or sickness should be looked after and not demonised. This is a great and compassionate country and we do ourselves great disservice by not recognising the difference between the groups mentioned above.
26k or even 23k when reduced seems to be a hell of a large amount.
Also, people, you can't just flag posts just because you disagree with someone's opinion, please don't waste any more of the mods' time or this thread will just be shut, which none of us really want now we're getting some decent discussion.
Yeah but you have to contend with an outside toilet.
People who genuinely need help, especially those with sick or disabled family members should never be left to suffer without a safety net.
However if you can afford new TV's, iPad, holidays, ciggies and drink then clearly you are receiving too many benefits.
The reason there was so many people at short notice is that a large number of people voted against the conservatives and a significant number of those are just as emotive as you are (but a bit closer, judging by your handle). I don't think you can tar everyone with the same brush. A lot of people there would of seen the actions of a minority as counter-productive and repulsive. Equally I highly doubt the people who organised the numbers set the agenda of such a despicable act.