Great article by Nick Cohen in the Guardian. He nails some of the biggest issues that Labour face. Cohen's points about the 'educated left' are particularly well made.
Great article by Nick Cohen in the Guardian. He nails some of the biggest issues that Labour face. Cohen's points about the 'educated left' are particularly well made.
I wouldn't blame you mate, I honestly don't know how people can be comfortable living in London. I'm out of York now, living in a small market town where I grew up. Crime is practically non-existent. Ten minute walk from my house I'm in rolling fields, twenty minute drive I can be walking round Dalby Forest or strolling along Filey beach. Even my drive to work is along a rural B road which is beautiful early on a morning as the sun's coming up although I've got to be careful of the rabbits, pheasants, owls and occasional deer. With young kids @nth london addick you'd be mad not to if it's doable.
Great article by Nick Cohen in the Guardian. He nails some of the biggest issues that Labour face. Cohen's points about the 'educated left' are particularly well made.
What a good article. I don't read the Guardian and am therefore very surprised, to see an article, pointing out Labour's many failings.
this article seemed to have slipped by me. Brilliant analysis and pinpoints exactly the failings of the labour party imo. If they can take this on board, 2020 could well see a massive landslide to labour. Mirrors of 1992 in the shy tories and 1997 with a reformed labour party?
Must admit and God forgive me for saying it but we have been discussing leaving old London town and moving more into.the shires ourselves this weekend
Never thought I woukd do or say that but Joan Ryan winning here just shows the neighborhood has gone to the dogs
Not a labour intended dig but a sign of the changes in enfield and the folk in it
We've been toying with the idea of moving out for 3-4 years. Would love to stay in our area if we could afford a proper family house but we just can't stretch that far. Anyway we accepted an offer on our place this weekend so it looks like the Santa clan is heading for Kent.
I wouldn't blame you mate, I honestly don't know how people can be comfortable living in London. I'm out of York now, living in a small market town where I grew up. Crime is practically non-existent. Ten minute walk from my house I'm in rolling fields, twenty minute drive I can be walking round Dalby Forest or strolling along Filey beach. Even my drive to work is along a rural B road which is beautiful early on a morning as the sun's coming up although I've got to be careful of the rabbits, pheasants, owls and occasional deer. With young kids @nth london addick you'd be mad not to if it's doable.
Wish I'd known that last week, done a full tour of Yorkshire for the bike riding thing
We did York, Scarborough, Bridlington, Beverley,
Then a Wakefield, Barnsley, Moortown amd feck knows where else, could have met for a beer.
I love York, and the roads that link Scarborough Bridlington and Beverly, wow I could drive that scenery all day,
Seriously going to be looking into moving out of town, can't be arsed with this place and the filth that's moving into it
I wouldn't blame you mate, I honestly don't know how people can be comfortable living in London. I'm out of York now, living in a small market town where I grew up. Crime is practically non-existent. Ten minute walk from my house I'm in rolling fields, twenty minute drive I can be walking round Dalby Forest or strolling along Filey beach. Even my drive to work is along a rural B road which is beautiful early on a morning as the sun's coming up although I've got to be careful of the rabbits, pheasants, owls and occasional deer. With young kids @nth london addick you'd be mad not to if it's doable.
Wish I'd known that last week, done a full tour of Yorkshire for the bike riding thing
We did York, Scarborough, Bridlington, Beverley,
Then a Wakefield, Barnsley, Moortown amd feck knows where else, could have met for a beer.
I love York, and the roads that link Scarborough Bridlington and Beverly, wow I could drive that scenery all day,
Seriously going to be looking into moving out of town, can't be arsed with this place and the filth that's moving into it
if the industry i work in wasnt so heavily london based i'd love to move to sheffield. When my sister was at uni there and i came to visit i absolutely loved it and the surrounding countryside. Was a bit cold though...
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.
This.
I'm confident as an ex financial adviser, that everyone taking out a mortgage, would be advised to take out life & critical illness protection for both them and their partner.
The critical illness option can be quite expensive, but life cover for both parties should not be too onerous and really should be taken out in every case. It is sheer foolhardy to do otherwise.
It is a terribly tragic case, but that is why life insurance is essential, to avoid such tragedies.
I wouldn't blame you mate, I honestly don't know how people can be comfortable living in London. I'm out of York now, living in a small market town where I grew up. Crime is practically non-existent. Ten minute walk from my house I'm in rolling fields, twenty minute drive I can be walking round Dalby Forest or strolling along Filey beach. Even my drive to work is along a rural B road which is beautiful early on a morning as the sun's coming up although I've got to be careful of the rabbits, pheasants, owls and occasional deer. With young kids @nth london addick you'd be mad not to if it's doable.
Wish I'd known that last week, done a full tour of Yorkshire for the bike riding thing
We did York, Scarborough, Bridlington, Beverley,
Then a Wakefield, Barnsley, Moortown amd feck knows where else, could have met for a beer.
I love York, and the roads that link Scarborough Bridlington and Beverly, wow I could drive that scenery all day,
Seriously going to be looking into moving out of town, can't be arsed with this place and the filth that's moving into it
Damn, wish I'd known, we could have met for a shandy. I feel I'm truly lucky to live where I do, it might not be buzzing but the stress levels are so low.
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.
Are your figures gross or net?
If net there are many working people who take home far less than £2,200 per month.
Is it morally right that those on benefits should be better off than those working?
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 agree with that Chizz. Glad to see you've been converted at last.
I'm not sure on the answer of a cap. But £26k net income, is more than many earn working, so to my way of thinking, that seems more than adequate. I reckon many people on here would like a £26k net income pa, or more than £30k pa gross.
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.
Are your figures gross or net?
If net there are many working people who take home far less than £2,200 per month.
Is it morally right that those on benefits should be better off than those working?
Way more than my son earns and his rented flat in Charlton takes must of his wages. Also a lot more than my daughter earns with two kids to look after.
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.
Are your figures gross or net?
If net there are many working people who take home far less than £2,200 per month.
Is it morally right that those on benefits should be better off than those working?
In my view, anyone receiving benefits will be - de facto - worse off than anyone working and earning, full-time without benefits. The benefits are meant to provide a top-up for those that have a specific need. If you *need* benefit, then the State must provide that benefit to you. It's entirely and completely distinct from "earnings".
If I need to rely on benefit, I would not consider my self to be - and I would not be - "better off" than those working.
Remember that most people on benefits are employed.
and in terms of the human rights act, UKIP had it as a key policy to abolish it and replace it. 4 million people voted for them.
We elected one Ukip MP. They're the first party ever to fail to win any MPs in a general election and then lose seats in the following election. I am more than happy to continue to ignore anything proposed by them .
ignoring 4 million people is pretty stupid. Maybe logic like this and failing to engage with people and policies they didn't like is why labour lost the election?
Why just UKIP voters?
What about the 9.3 million Labour voters, or the 1.4 million SNP voters, or the 2.4 million LD voters or 1.1 million Green voters. Shouldn't their views be considered as well? Combined they are more than the Tories received.
The reality is that our system allows for the party in power to ignore all others. The Tories will believe that they can and will do exactly as they please. They will pander to UKIP as there is a fear that UKIP will take away votes in the future, but that will be it.
It is madness that more than half the country feel disenfranchised for whole parliaments, but that is the reality and not good for genuine democracy.
This thread has been amazing. It's taught me a lot. The most important lesson is without doubt that the microcosm of society that is Charlton Life has made me realise that there are an awful lot of people that disagree with me in the way that I want society to be. With my outlook on life. With practically everything. My views on what is right and fair, animal cruelty, racism, sexism and a dozen other topics.
Has that changed me ? I actually think it's going to make more insular, protective and selfish because I know that the world I thought I lived in is actually very hard, cruel and threatening. More so than I had realised.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them. </blockquote
I think I pity you, if you really believe what you post.
Oh and this sort of nonsense is 100% the reason Labour did not win the election.
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 agree with that Chizz. Glad to see you've been converted at last.
I'm not sure on the answer of a cap. But £26k net income, is more than many earn working, so to my way of thinking, that seems more than adequate. I reckon many people on here would like a £26k net income pa, or more than £30k pa gross.
Remember that was a maximum and included rent, this will now go down to 23k. So regardless of how big the family is or where they live a maximum of about £475 per week to cover everything. As I said before some people are absolutely fine on this, some will also be well off, some however would struggle tremendously.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
IMO. The reason why Labour did not win the election were a mixture of things. This included the long failure to challenge the Tory Lie / false premise that they were responsible for the global crash. The Crash was due to lack of financial regulation and over speculation. The British economy is dependent on financial services and suffered consequently because of it. Labour did not specifically spend any more than any other Post War government. They failed to challenge the Tory lie. The Tories manage to link the crash with Labour overspending. Miliband mentioned something about that in the last Question Time debate but it was too little to late against years of Tory repeated claims. Everyone knows that a lie repeated often enough gains the currency of truth.
The second thing is that Labour failed to challenge the assertion that the SNP were evil incarnate. The Tories campaigned with Labour for Scotland to be part of the Union in the referendum. Then they turned around and wound up the Scots, for their own advantage that the SNP general views were completely illegitimate. Labour should have called the Tories on that contradiction. Miliband should have been prepared to say that a hung parliament was manageable and that they would work with all others around core issues in the British interest. The SNP would have had to fallen in line behind Labour in much the same way the Lib Dems did behind the Tories as a minor party.
Instead of standing up strong to the demonisation and scare mongering of the Tories on the SNP, Miliband said no deals or that he would work with the SNP and it looked like there was something in the Tory claim. Miliband should have attacked the Tories for their possible dependence on the DUP and UKIP and the more radical right wing elements of the Conservative party. Also gone on the attack about the threat of a Tory party who want to dismantle public services. More an appeal for the centre ground. Labour could have reassured its core support and reached out to those who had doubts raised from the Conservative claim.
Lastly, I also think that Labour should have offered a referendum of EC membership. This would have cut out the ground from UKIP. The referendum offered with a clear direction that Labour wanted to be in Europe but respected the views of those people that didn't and would allow Labour candidates to campaign against EC membership if they wanted.
Labour are always pushing uphill against entrenched Tory Power and media that heavily backs the Conservatives. Labour are pretty much the away time in any contest. For Labour to beat the Conservatives they are required to be pretty much perfect. They were clearly not and paid the price.
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.
Are your figures gross or net?
If net there are many working people who take home far less than £2,200 per month.
Is it morally right that those on benefits should be better off than those working?
In my view, anyone receiving benefits will be - de facto - worse off than anyone working and earning, full-time without benefits. The benefits are meant to provide a top-up for those that have a specific need. If you *need* benefit, then the State must provide that benefit to you. It's entirely and completely distinct from "earnings".
If I need to rely on benefit, I would not consider my self to be - and I would not be - "better off" than those working.
Remember that most people on benefits are employed.
Unbelieveable.
So you are saying, if someone received £1M pa on benefits, you consider them worse off, than those earning £15k pa, working full time.
It's impossible that any adult can believe that.
Like I say. It is this sort of twaddle, why Labour was not elected and will never be elected again, until they get rid of the deluded.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
This thread has been amazing. It's taught me a lot. The most important lesson is without doubt that the microcosm of society that is Charlton Life has made me realise that there are an awful lot of people that disagree with me in the way that I want society to be. With my outlook on life. With practically everything. My views on what is right and fair, animal cruelty, racism, sexism and a dozen other topics.
Has that changed me ? I actually think it's going to make more insular, protective and selfish because I know that the world I thought I lived in is actually very hard, cruel and threatening. More so than I had realised.
All a bit self indulgent I know but fuck it.
SHG try not to feel too down, there are more things that connect people than you might think. Tennyson said that nature is cruel in tooth and claw, but nature is also beautiful.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
Comments
Never thought I woukd do or say that but Joan Ryan winning here just shows the neighborhood has gone to the dogs
Not a labour intended dig but a sign of the changes in enfield and the folk in it
With young kids @nth london addick you'd be mad not to if it's doable.
Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out tonight, putting his kids first
Wish I'd known that last week, done a full tour of Yorkshire for the bike riding thing
We did York, Scarborough, Bridlington, Beverley,
Then a Wakefield, Barnsley, Moortown amd feck knows where else, could have met for a beer.
I love York, and the roads that link Scarborough Bridlington and Beverly, wow I could drive that scenery all day,
Seriously going to be looking into moving out of town, can't be arsed with this place and the filth that's moving into it
I'm confident as an ex financial adviser, that everyone taking out a mortgage, would be advised to take out life & critical illness protection for both them and their partner.
The critical illness option can be quite expensive, but life cover for both parties should not be too onerous and really should be taken out in every case. It is sheer foolhardy to do otherwise.
It is a terribly tragic case, but that is why life insurance is essential, to avoid such tragedies.
Damn, wish I'd known, we could have met for a shandy. I feel I'm truly lucky to live where I do, it might not be buzzing but the stress levels are so low.
If net there are many working people who take home far less than £2,200 per month.
Is it morally right that those on benefits should be better off than those working?
I'm not sure on the answer of a cap. But £26k net income, is more than many earn working, so to my way of thinking, that seems more than adequate. I reckon many people on here would like a £26k net income pa, or more than £30k pa gross.
If I need to rely on benefit, I would not consider my self to be - and I would not be - "better off" than those working.
Remember that most people on benefits are employed.
What about the 9.3 million Labour voters, or the 1.4 million SNP voters, or the 2.4 million LD voters or 1.1 million Green voters. Shouldn't their views be considered as well? Combined they are more than the Tories received.
The reality is that our system allows for the party in power to ignore all others. The Tories will believe that they can and will do exactly as they please. They will pander to UKIP as there is a fear that UKIP will take away votes in the future, but that will be it.
It is madness that more than half the country feel disenfranchised for whole parliaments, but that is the reality and not good for genuine democracy.
Has that changed me ? I actually think it's going to make more insular, protective and selfish because I know that the world I thought I lived in is actually very hard, cruel and threatening. More so than I had realised.
All a bit self indulgent I know but fuck it.
The second thing is that Labour failed to challenge the assertion that the SNP were evil incarnate. The Tories campaigned with Labour for Scotland to be part of the Union in the referendum. Then they turned around and wound up the Scots, for their own advantage that the SNP general views were completely illegitimate. Labour should have called the Tories on that contradiction. Miliband should have been prepared to say that a hung parliament was manageable and that they would work with all others around core issues in the British interest. The SNP would have had to fallen in line behind Labour in much the same way the Lib Dems did behind the Tories as a minor party.
Instead of standing up strong to the demonisation and scare mongering of the Tories on the SNP, Miliband said no deals or that he would work with the SNP and it looked like there was something in the Tory claim. Miliband should have attacked the Tories for their possible dependence on the DUP and UKIP and the more radical right wing elements of the Conservative party. Also gone on the attack about the threat of a Tory party who want to dismantle public services. More an appeal for the centre ground. Labour could have reassured its core support and reached out to those who had doubts raised from the Conservative claim.
Lastly, I also think that Labour should have offered a referendum of EC membership. This would have cut out the ground from UKIP. The referendum offered with a clear direction that Labour wanted to be in Europe but respected the views of those people that didn't and would allow Labour candidates to campaign against EC membership if they wanted.
Labour are always pushing uphill against entrenched Tory Power and media that heavily backs the Conservatives. Labour are pretty much the away time in any contest. For Labour to beat the Conservatives they are required to be pretty much perfect. They were clearly not and paid the price.
So you are saying, if someone received £1M pa on benefits, you consider them worse off, than those earning £15k pa, working full time.
It's impossible that any adult can believe that.
Like I say. It is this sort of twaddle, why Labour was not elected and will never be elected again, until they get rid of the deluded.