Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: CusworthRovers on October 06, 2010, 10:33:47 pm
-
As a big labour supporter, I actually agree with this Coalition initiative. It sounds more like a Labour policy to me that they haven't seen fit to do or approach or have the b*llocks to say, for fear of losing the Southern vote.
All the chuffs earning wads of cash, what the chuff do they need to claim for. In reality it will be fine wines money for the parents and not for the kids, who clearly do not need it.
Give it to the ones that do!
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
As a big labour supporter, I actually agree with this Coalition initiative. It sounds more like a Labour policy to me that they haven't seen fit to do or approach or have the b*llocks to say, for fear of losing the Southern vote.
All the chuffs earning wads of cash, what the chuff do they need to claim for. In reality it will be fine wines money for the parents and not for the kids, who clearly do not need it.
Give it to the ones that do!
It`s a load of b*llocks mate, how do they justify a 1 wage family earning £44k a year having it taken away, but still allow a 2 wage family with a joint income of £86k to keep it?
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
As a big labour supporter, I actually agree with this Coalition initiative. It sounds more like a Labour policy to me that they haven't seen fit to do or approach or have the b*llocks to say, for fear of losing the Southern vote.
All the chuffs earning wads of cash, what the chuff do they need to claim for. In reality it will be fine wines money for the parents and not for the kids, who clearly do not need it.
Give it to the ones that do!
I'm with you , they just need to iron out the dual income disparity and it's sorted...........as for me I'm definitely NOT a Labour supporter. Sounds like a Lib/Dem idea to me though not Tory. ;)
-
It's the classic softening-up tactic. They want to wage war on the Welfare State. They reckon that the best way to do it is to wage a minor little war on the higher paid first off. That way, when the full carnage is unleashed on the poorer folk, they can say, \"Aye, but Jemima and Rupert in Sevenoaks are taking a hit an all.\"
BTW Hoola. The Lib Dems were much too left-wing to agree to this (at least BEFORE the Election they were). They categorically were against means-testing of child benefit (which is what this is) for precisely the reasons I state.
But then, Clegg is an irrelevance now. Did you see his interview when this policy was announced, followed by another one that is 180 degrees opposite to Liberal policy (the idea of having Married Couple tax allowances)? He looked like the bairn that had been told by the big lads that he could sit on the back seat of the school bus, but when it set off, they gave him and wedgie, made him suck their cocks in turn then chucked him out of the Emergency Exit.
-
I have to say I find it extremely hard to summon up much sympathy for the 44k a year brigade.
although I have to say they are blatantly targeting the single parent, be it make or female. after all you have the same bills to pay if you are a one adult household as you would in a two adult one, and I know people live to their means.. HOWEVER...
when Stacie left school my income dropped nearly £600 a MONTH. and as I am only on minimum wage to begin with it went from just over 12 k to just over 7k in one hit...we survived..just. I wouldn't call it living, but it's a darned sight better than many people in many parts of the world isn't it?
So pardon me if I find it hard to weep for someone who is on nearly five times as much as me.
To be flip and generalising, perhaps it will get some of the bloody 4x4's off the school runs!
-
define 'save it for the ones that do' is it a one parent high earner who gets bills for every aspect of the childs life?, or a never to work type with four kids claiming for anything that moves, sweeping generalisations yes I know but i know where my thoughts are
Think more importantly they are getting turkeys to vote for christmas again, applying it to 44k+ but not combined salaries that are well in excess of this so everyone complains ( rightly) that this is unfair , the next step is simple, take it from more people to even it out, as you the great public asked for.
And here the erosion begins
-
The bleating has already started at work. Oh yes, it was fine to vote Tory when the \"cuts\" were going to affect someone else, but when they land on your own door-step, cue rants of indignation.
-
Completely agree with it, these people do not need the money at all. Although I don't agree with keeping it for those whose combined earnings are more than the 44k, it should be total family earning. The problem is though they want more people to stay married and you could potentially see a situation where people divorce to gain the money which could potentially have a wider impact on other benefits, tax etc, potentially issues such as that could lead to the savings being completely eradicated.
-
Here is a novel, but unworkable and potentially highly unpopular thought..
Perhaps people on a higher income should have to give written proof of where child benefit goes. because I have always been rather sickend by the comfortably off announcing that 'we just put it in a bank account because we dont really need it.'
THEY are the ones that perhaps should lose it.
I thought family allowance was paid to the mother (or parent with care) for the children at a time when the care give stayed at home to raise the children, and for some it was their only income.
Now far too many use it for holidays and perks, not exactly what welfare was devised for is it?
I think Turnbull is right tho, this is a carefully constructed ploy to help what ever comes next either slip under the radar .
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
As a big labour supporter, I actually agree with this Coalition initiative. It sounds more like a Labour policy to me that they haven't seen fit to do or approach or have the b*llocks to say, for fear of losing the Southern vote.
All the chuffs earning wads of cash, what the chuff do they need to claim for. In reality it will be fine wines money for the parents and not for the kids, who clearly do not need it.
Give it to the ones that do!
Something has to change because as it stands our benefit system is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme.
Bernie Madoff got 150 years for running a system like ours!
-
Its ok,people who have studied and worked god damn hard to earn over 44k have it all they dont they??? I mean, 40% tax is a real bonus.
For me, take it off the scroungers who pop 7 kids out and sit at home on their fat backsides watching jezza in a morning on their 50inch plasma's paid for with their \"benefits\"
Just a thought.
-
This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.
That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.
Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.
This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..
And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.
-
Don't bring me into this arguement Juicyberry!!!
-
jucyberry wrote:
This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.
That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.
Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.
This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..
And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.
I agree with that.
I remember a teacher I had at school. Blamed the fact that I was shit at maths on the fact I came from a one parent family.
Personally I welcome the cuts. It doesn't effect me, however I know a couple of people it does effect, and they also have no problem with it. I'm tending to agree about the joint income argument though.
-
MrFrost wrote:
jucyberry wrote:
This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.
That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.
Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.
This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..
And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.
I agree with that.
I remember a teacher I had at school. Blamed the fact that I was shit at maths on the fact I came from a one parent family.
Personally I welcome the cuts. It doesn't effect me, however I know a couple of people it does effect, and they also have no problem with it. I'm tending to agree about the joint income argument though.
Maggie, Cameron and Clegg will be proud of you ;)
-
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
jucyberry wrote:
This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.
That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.
Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.
This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..
And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.
I agree with that.
I remember a teacher I had at school. Blamed the fact that I was shit at maths on the fact I came from a one parent family.
Personally I welcome the cuts. It doesn't effect me, however I know a couple of people it does effect, and they also have no problem with it. I'm tending to agree about the joint income argument though.
Maggie, Cameron and Clegg will be proud of you ;)
I presume you stopped reading after the highlighted part.
Anyone earning over 44k per year, should be able to live a comfortable life, without depending on welfare handouts.
-
The Child allowance is a right of every family in Britain regardless of income, a better approach would be for the allowance for families over the £44k threshold to be invested in a pension fund for each child, thus giving that child a start for their pension and in the long term reduce the costs of state pensions, or is this too simple?
-
MrFrost wrote:
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
jucyberry wrote:
This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.
That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.
Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.
This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..
And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.
I agree with that.
I remember a teacher I had at school. Blamed the fact that I was shit at maths on the fact I came from a one parent family.
Personally I welcome the cuts. It doesn't effect me, however I know a couple of people it does effect, and they also have no problem with it. I'm tending to agree about the joint income argument though.
Maggie, Cameron and Clegg will be proud of you ;)
I presume you stopped reading after the highlighted part.
Anyone earning over 44k per year, should be able to live a comfortable life, without depending on welfare handouts.
The highlighted part is a statement that I would expect from you, the majority of your posts are of the \"f**k you I`m alright\" variety
-
Filo wrote:
The Child allowance is a right of every family in Britain regardless of income, a better approach would be for the allowance for families over the £44k threshold to be invested in a pension fund for each child, thus giving that child a start for their pension and in the long term reduce the costs of state pensions, or is this too simple?
It isn't going to be a right as from 2013 though is it?
-
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
jucyberry wrote:
This is what I mean, if it is just going into the bank and being saved, then it isn't needed.
That wasn't what any benefit was devised for.
Means test it, it would be fairer in the long run than penalising parents in a single adult household.
This is more an assult on the single parent than it is against the wealthy.
Tory middle Englanders seem to loathe single parents with an almost unhealthy passion..
And here's a thought, most of the so called feckless multi kid families we see in the papers generally have two parents.
Most single parents are out there working to put food on the table.
I agree with that.
I remember a teacher I had at school. Blamed the fact that I was shit at maths on the fact I came from a one parent family.
Personally I welcome the cuts. It doesn't effect me, however I know a couple of people it does effect, and they also have no problem with it. I'm tending to agree about the joint income argument though.
Maggie, Cameron and Clegg will be proud of you ;)
I presume you stopped reading after the highlighted part.
Anyone earning over 44k per year, should be able to live a comfortable life, without depending on welfare handouts.
The highlighted part is a statement that I would expect from you, the majority of your posts are of the \"fcuk you I`m alright\" variety
Yes, although if you capable of reading past that, you would see that the post wasn't made in that vain.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Yes, although if you capable of reading past that, you would see that the post wasn't made in that vain.
So why make the point that it does n`t affect you at all?
you could have just said you agreed with it without stating that it does n`t affect you, I suspect that if it did affect you, you would be mightily pissed off and have a different point of view!
-
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Yes, although if you capable of reading past that, you would see that the post wasn't made in that vain.
So why make the point that it does n`t affect you at all?
you could have just said you agreed with it without stating that it does n`t affect you, I suspect that if it did affect you, you would be mightily pissed off and have a different point of view!
If I was lucky enough to earn 44k a year, I very much doubt I would need an extra £20 a week. As a business owner, we are having to deal with a VAT increase as from January. I've not moaned about that anywhere, have I?
-
Mmm. No-one picked up on the sarcasm in my post.
I'm not happy. I will loose £134 a month, which DOES go on my children and not into my \"4x4\" as juicy puts it, or on my wine!
-
MrFrost wrote:
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Yes, although if you capable of reading past that, you would see that the post wasn't made in that vain.
So why make the point that it does n`t affect you at all?
you could have just said you agreed with it without stating that it does n`t affect you, I suspect that if it did affect you, you would be mightily pissed off and have a different point of view!
If I was lucky enough to earn 44k a year, I very much doubt I would need an extra £20 a week. As a business owner, we are having to deal with a VAT increase as from January. I've not moaned about that anywhere, have I?
I doubt that you moaned about the DROP in VAT given by Gordon Brown to keep small businesses afloat through the worst point of the crisis, giving them a bit more money in the pocket, then putting it BACK to where it was before. the ONLY governments to have ever raised the percentage of VAT have been Tory ones, and will do so again, because it affects the poor much more as a tax than the rich, and that is who their constituancy is, the greedy and the rich.
-
Now, I'm sorry if I hit a nerve with the 4x4 comment, but living in a rural area as I do, you do tend to get heartily sick of upity mares and their monster trucks.. ( not that I am inferring you are upity)
I actually didn't give a thought to the wine consumption of the better off. I don't drink so booze doesn't figure very high on my thought list. :)
And If you feel I have been unduly flippant then once again I'm sorry.
However, I also stand by my comments about those who openly say they bank this money because they don't need it.
I also know that it is all realative, the £600 a month I lost from my finances when my daughter left education and the £134 that will be lost from your income IF and when the cuts come both pinch a tight wallet don't they?
-
To be fair, its a hard call. It just makes me sick having to pay 40% tax when there are so many people who do not contribute a penny, never have any intention of doing so and just sponge off the state.
For the record, I dont drive a 4x4. With my driving skills, i'd never be able to park it anyway. I struggle to get in between the lines in a mother and baby space at the supermarket :laugh:
-
The thing is, as with everything in this world, the ones who lose out will be the ones who need. The winners are as always, the ones with everything..
The proverbial chip for you is the huge ammount of tax you pay , for me it is the penalisation of the single parent. Asthe child of a father who died at 48 leaving my mum alone ( and don't get me started on the way widowed mothers are treated in this country) I do tend to get extremely defensive of the single parent family.
I honestly cannot get my head around a government that has willfully declaired a war of sorts against a one parent family in this way.
(although on a similar theme I was taking to one of my friends about it. she is a widow, her husband died before retirement age, the advice she was given when she challenged her cut in benefit was, well, when you go shopping now only buy one chop instead of two..)
.Ah the compassion of the benefit system.
-
My main gripe is people who just dont wanna work and expect everyone else to pay for them.
I was brought up in stainy on a council estate by my single parent mother, so I know the other toss of the coin well.
-
I wonder if the career claimant will ever really be stopped. The sad thing is, everyone knows at least one, yet so many good, dcent people are trapped in the moir of the benefit system with little hope of escape. There are times when I have to admit I could weep with frustration at the way some have the knack of milking the system. I know for myself, even if i wanted to go down that route then I wouldn't be one of the plasma tv brigade, with irony I'd say I wouldn't be that lucky. Lol.
-
Y'know, I've been reading the papers, and watching the TV, for 30 odd years and more now. And every single week of that 30 odd years there's been another article about the 'spongers', the 'workshy' and the 'lazy' all scrounging off the system. And bizarrely, guess what? Every single political party at every single election in those 30 odd years has 'vowed to clamp down on the scroungers'.
Not been doing much of a job then have they?
Alternatively, all this angst and anguish could be a ploy. A political statement to appeal to the greed of those who do the work. We all like some other bugger to blame for all our troubles don't we?
Makes me sick this debate does. What the f**k is the purpose of society then? If there's more than a teeny, teeny fraction of one percent of folk who are still scrounging, then sack the f**king politicians. They've been bellyaching about it for long enough. And if it is really a teeny, teeny fraction of one percent, then shut the f**k up and concentrate on something important for a change.
And yes. Removing the child care allowance will have a major and direct impact on Alexander. And I do earn more than 44 grand. And yes, I am a single parent. Of a 9 year old.
BobG
-
Barmby Rover wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Yes, although if you capable of reading past that, you would see that the post wasn't made in that vain.
So why make the point that it does n`t affect you at all?
you could have just said you agreed with it without stating that it does n`t affect you, I suspect that if it did affect you, you would be mightily pissed off and have a different point of view!
If I was lucky enough to earn 44k a year, I very much doubt I would need an extra £20 a week. As a business owner, we are having to deal with a VAT increase as from January. I've not moaned about that anywhere, have I?
I doubt that you moaned about the DROP in VAT given by Gordon Brown to keep small businesses afloat through the worst point of the crisis, giving them a bit more money in the pocket, then putting it BACK to where it was before. the ONLY governments to have ever raised the percentage of VAT have been Tory ones, and will do so again, because it affects the poor much more as a tax than the rich, and that is who their constituancy is, the greedy and the rich.
I didn't have a business when VAT was reduced, so I can't really comment.
I(along with my business partner) have managed to set up and grow a business in one of the hardest financial periods of recent memory, with zero help from the banks, or the waste of space that is Business Link (despite Labour ploughing millions into them).
It is not all doom and gloom, which some of the Labour lovers will have you believe. The cuts are harsh, but IMO, alot of them are necessary.
If more people actually used some initiative rather than moan about losing this benefit or that benefit, then maybe the country wouldn't be so fecked up.
I'm not saying that people don't need or reply on welfare. They do. But many are happy to take advantage when they simply don't need it. I mentioned earlier, that this cut doesn't effect myself. However, it may do come 2013. And, if at that time, I am lucky enough to be earning such a salary, I certainly wouldn't be looking for anything extra, and would be confident I could raise my family on my salary alone.
I'll judge the rest of the cuts as they come. Some I reckon i'll agree with, some I may not.
-
The effectiveness of cuts like the Child Benefit seems a little dubious to me, Bob, you are in a minority, most folks never have or will earn more than £44K. However, that is the whole point. How many people are going to have this benefit denied now? Supposedly £1bn will be saved, how many new civil servants will have to be employed to check the incomes of all the peoeple now having to claim CB and then issue the new benefit? I pesume that this is of no cost? I doubt it. The simple arithmatic of removing so many CB claims is not the whole story. I presume the next thing will be the winter fuel payments, another universal benefit, then again we have to start checking people's incomes,more civil servants. State pensions to be means tested? Same again. Cuts get moere and more complicated and the number of u turns and convoluted wriggling by gutless politicians will end up not changing a damn thing except that the least able and most vulnerable will claim less and less because they don't have the education/confidence to withstand the accusations of being \"scroungers\". Without drastic cuts hitting the worst off in our society the current regime cannot deliver what they want, and that will be their undoing, they have no idea of what they are doing and care even less about who they affect.
Mr.Frost, nice avoidance of showing just how little you know about the history of VAT. Don't forget you grew your business with a nice little subsidy from the previous government. Every little helps as they say, maybe the last lot were not all bad after all eh?
-
It's a politically approved criminal act is this cut in Child Benefit.
Tne sensible answer thata ny rational person would approve is a rise in taxes generally with it slanted a little more towards thjose earning mega bucks. We all have to pay some of the price - no argument there. But those with more should pay more. This cut to CB is a direct attack o the least well off. Yes. Plenty of rich folk get it. But funnily enough, they've paid their tax and NI too. To attack the only benefit that goes directly to the mothers, to squeeze the least well off while simply knocking less thana grand off the income of the better off f**king stinks. As I said, it is politically approved criminal action. I hope they plead the Nuremburg defence for it one day. Bloody toerags.
BobG
-
Barmby Rover wrote:
The effectiveness of cuts like the Child Benefit seems a little dubious to me, Bob, you are in a minority, most folks never have or will earn more than £44K. However, that is the whole point. How many people are going to have this benefit denied now? Supposedly £1bn will be saved, how many new civil servants will have to be employed to check the incomes of all the peoeple now having to claim CB and then issue the new benefit? I pesume that this is of no cost? I doubt it. The simple arithmatic of removing so many CB claims is not the whole story. I presume the next thing will be the winter fuel payments, another universal benefit, then again we have to start checking people's incomes,more civil servants. State pensions to be means tested? Same again. Cuts get moere and more complicated and the number of u turns and convoluted wriggling by gutless politicians will end up not changing a damn thing except that the least able and most vulnerable will claim less and less because they don't have the education/confidence to withstand the accusations of being \"scroungers\". Without drastic cuts hitting the worst off in our society the current regime cannot deliver what they want, and that will be their undoing, they have no idea of what they are doing and care even less about who they affect.
Mr.Frost, nice avoidance of showing just how little you know about the history of VAT. Don't forget you grew your business with a nice little subsidy from the previous government. Every little helps as they say, maybe the last lot were not all bad after all eh?
Do you really think that the costs associated with making a net 1 billion pound saving won't have been taken into account? A bit naive don't you think?
-
Barmby Rover wrote:
The effectiveness of cuts like the Child Benefit seems a little dubious to me, Bob, you are in a minority, most folks never have or will earn more than £44K. However, that is the whole point. How many people are going to have this benefit denied now? Supposedly £1bn will be saved, how many new civil servants will have to be employed to check the incomes of all the peoeple now having to claim CB and then issue the new benefit? I pesume that this is of no cost? I doubt it. The simple arithmatic of removing so many CB claims is not the whole story. I presume the next thing will be the winter fuel payments, another universal benefit, then again we have to start checking people's incomes,more civil servants. State pensions to be means tested? Same again. Cuts get moere and more complicated and the number of u turns and convoluted wriggling by gutless politicians will end up not changing a damn thing except that the least able and most vulnerable will claim less and less because they don't have the education/confidence to withstand the accusations of being \"scroungers\". Without drastic cuts hitting the worst off in our society the current regime cannot deliver what they want, and that will be their undoing, they have no idea of what they are doing and care even less about who they affect.
Mr.Frost, nice avoidance of showing just how little you know about the history of VAT. Don't forget you grew your business with a nice little subsidy from the previous government. Every little helps as they say, maybe the last lot were not all bad after all eh?
It would have been a hell of alot easier if we could have gained help from the banks. It took us 6 months to get accepted for a normal run of the mill business bank account.
And don't get me started on Business Link who are meant to be there to support businesses. Labour gave them almost £10 million to create just their website. They are a complete and utter waste of money, and i'm glad the current regime will be cutting their funding.
Having said that, i'm glad I started out at the time I did, it has been extremely challenging, and a real eye opener.
-
Hmmm...all these cuts made in order to wipe out the deficit...
Hands up all those who think the Tories will restore the funding when there isn't a deficit any more?
-
copps123 wrote:
For the record, I dont drive a 4x4. With my driving skills, i'd never be able to park it anyway. I struggle to get in between the lines in a mother and baby space at the supermarket :laugh:
To be honest, the inability to park a car in a parking bay properly doesnt seem to bother a lot of people nowadays. Even the super huge 'Parent and Child' bays at Morrisons often have cars straddling a couple of bays, thanks to either incompetent or inconsiderate idiots.
-
TWD, that was intended as humour... a simple jest at myself as a female driver. But while we are on the matter, my driving skills are not half bad, if I dont say so myself ;)
Ive been visiting DRI quite a lot lately and the way some people park around and about there really does leave my blood boiling. That and people who park in mother and baby spaces who have not one child with them, while I have to park at the other end of the car park struggling to get 3 yr old twins out of the car in the pouring rain...joy.
-
I may be speaking imorally here but there are bound to be ways for people in Bob's position to work around this cut.
For example if you take some of your wage in childcare vouchers, these are tax-free and and reduce the salary, potentially below the threshold - will this loophole be closed? Dunno.
Could you re-struture your package to include a basic wage and bonus/commission structure? Is the £44k based on guaranteed salary? Would the tax man chase you for a repayment if your bonus took you over the limit. And if so, how much would he want? If you earned £44,500 then surely they could only ask for £500 back rather than the £1000ish paid out for one child. Would this retrospective approach be better than having a straight-up salary of £44,500 and being entitled to claim nothing?
A lot of earners in this bracket and claiming CB will probably have stay-at-home partners lookin gafter child/ren. Putting them down as a P.A. on the payroll and splitting salary between them could be possible in certain cases and would save all sorts of tax.
Just a few starters there. Pretty immoral I know but where there's a will....
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Hmmm...all these cuts made in order to wipe out the deficit...
Hands up all those who think the Tories will restore the funding when there isn't a deficit any more?
Why should they? Why should someone earning over 44k have a right to child benefit? They don't need it, surely that money would be better off eventually being ploughed into better areas.
As for winter fuel allowances that someone mentioned I have two sets of grandparents luckily all healthy and living. My grandparents in Doncaster live in a council house and all and quite clearly it's of benefit to them (though they still barely use the heating despite how much we complain about it to them). MY other grandparents up in Scotland get the same amount and they're very well off, something wrong about that as they do not need it, something wrong there. They'll admit they do not need this benefit but they do get it.
Then there's free bus passes, another ridiculous waste IMO. My grandparents moan about this aswell saying they know people who use it because theyh can. They get really annoyed by OAPS who do not walk anywhere when they clearly can (this is their friends they're talking about). They'd be quite happy to back to the 40p per trip rate as that was fair and encouraged OAPS to stop taking the bus for one stop, and anybody who's used a bus will know that this does happen. Don't get me started on those who think they're entitled to a seat for their bags whilst those of us who pay £2.40 each journey have to stand to make room for their shopping.
-
I've started a decent debate here, as I knew it would, and drag in all the thinkers and opinion-meisters.
In all honesty the OP was meant to reel them in. Apologies.
In truth, the 44k threshold for one earner is insane, when 2 earners can bring in 87k and still claim it.
Many good points, as said, people who pay their taxes/NI, why shouldn't they get it. I'll gladly pay my taxes/NI for the good of my family and the good of the Welfare State and this Nation, but it boils my piss to see some much apathy, so much 'the country owes me a living', negative, scrounging shits about, who farm out kids everywhere and to everyone........and it is real and happening, not a glitch, but getting worse. You then have the 'what chance have their kids got' scenario, and before you know it's increased 10 fold. I feel it started from Maggie, and it's this generation coming through with no work and never seen the parents work, caused by Maggie from the 80's. God knows what it will be like in 10-20yrs, as it will multiply even more. It's a scenario, it's a society being created by poor government and needs rectifying, or we really will have a under class that might one day replicate the real poor countries. Bob makes a good point about the lack of inaction by the governments, in order to win votes they have all bleated on about tougher immigration laws, tough on the lazy, tough on the scroungers blah blah f**kin blah and none of the parties have delivered on it.
It needs some real new thinker from any party to come in and sort this country out, from the greedy rich bas**rds who are just getting richer off the back of many, and the low lifes who need sorting by re-invigorating or hit the chuffs hard until they are re-invigorated.
That's the Political View of CR, and I'm not really bothered which party it belongs too.
-
If we decide to pay child benefits to kids in Poland then any but the most basic welfare state is unaffordable and the situation will only get worse as the eu gets bigger incorporating poorer countries with bigger families.
-
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Hmmm...all these cuts made in order to wipe out the deficit...
Hands up all those who think the Tories will restore the funding when there isn't a deficit any more?
Why should they? Why should someone earning over 44k have a right to child benefit? They don't need it, surely that money would be better off eventually being ploughed into better areas.
As for winter fuel allowances that someone mentioned I have two sets of grandparents luckily all healthy and living. My grandparents in Doncaster live in a council house and all and quite clearly it's of benefit to them (though they still barely use the heating despite how much we complain about it to them). MY other grandparents up in Scotland get the same amount and they're very well off, something wrong about that as they do not need it, something wrong there. They'll admit they do not need this benefit but they do get it.
Then there's free bus passes, another ridiculous waste IMO. My grandparents moan about this aswell saying they know people who use it because theyh can. They get really annoyed by OAPS who do not walk anywhere when they clearly can (this is their friends they're talking about). They'd be quite happy to back to the 40p per trip rate as that was fair and encouraged OAPS to stop taking the bus for one stop, and anybody who's used a bus will know that this does happen. Don't get me started on those who think they're entitled to a seat for their bags whilst those of us who pay £2.40 each journey have to stand to make room for their shopping.
I have experience in working in the energy industry, and can promise you, the winter fuel payment is needed. There are plenty of old folk out there who genuinely cannot afford to heat their homes.
On a seperate matter, gas and leccy companies are now starting to credit check new customers. (EON do this). If you fail, you HAVE to either pay a £400 secuirty deposit or have pre pay meters installed.
-
MrFrost wrote:
big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Hmmm...all these cuts made in order to wipe out the deficit...
Hands up all those who think the Tories will restore the funding when there isn't a deficit any more?
Why should they? Why should someone earning over 44k have a right to child benefit? They don't need it, surely that money would be better off eventually being ploughed into better areas.
As for winter fuel allowances that someone mentioned I have two sets of grandparents luckily all healthy and living. My grandparents in Doncaster live in a council house and all and quite clearly it's of benefit to them (though they still barely use the heating despite how much we complain about it to them). MY other grandparents up in Scotland get the same amount and they're very well off, something wrong about that as they do not need it, something wrong there. They'll admit they do not need this benefit but they do get it.
Then there's free bus passes, another ridiculous waste IMO. My grandparents moan about this aswell saying they know people who use it because theyh can. They get really annoyed by OAPS who do not walk anywhere when they clearly can (this is their friends they're talking about). They'd be quite happy to back to the 40p per trip rate as that was fair and encouraged OAPS to stop taking the bus for one stop, and anybody who's used a bus will know that this does happen. Don't get me started on those who think they're entitled to a seat for their bags whilst those of us who pay £2.40 each journey have to stand to make room for their shopping.
I have experience in working in the energy industry, and can promise you, the winter fuel payment is needed. There are plenty of old folk out there who genuinely cannot afford to heat their homes.
On a seperate matter, gas and leccy companies are now starting to credit check new customers. (EON do this). If you fail, you HAVE to either pay a £400 secuirty deposit or have pre pay meters installed.
I'm not doubting that they are to many, the first set of Grandparents mentioned are an example of that, but to some it isn't needed and it seems sensible to take it away from those who don't needed. That's not millions but even a small saving in that area can provide the savings that the treasury needs, seems common sense to me.
-
I'd be careful about generalisations such as 'Anyone earning £44K doesn't need child benefit'. How the chuff do you know the circumstances of a million or more people? I'll give you just one example: I earn quite a lot more than £44K. So maybe I don't need the CB. But then, I took it upon myself about 4 or 5 years ago to buy a house (not a very nice house) for someone off the street to live in. They still do. I pay the bills. I pay the mortgage. I don't get any rent. I've got this person off crack. I've grown their life through education, training and actually getting a (very low paid) job. Yes. One day I'll own the asset and maybe even, God willing, own the capital growth as well. But right now, losing a thousand quid CB makes a f**k of a big difference. So stop yapping, and think a bit. There are folk out there in the big wide world who actually do their best to make up for the shortfalls of decades of f**king Tory mismanagement.
Losisng a grand is going to imperil all of that. If interest rates go up by more than 2%, that's it. The house will have to be sold. And that's a poor bugger back out on the streets dependant on the care of the lousiest, most immoral and most vindictive governing party this country has ever seen.
BobG
-
Savvy wrote:
Barmby Rover wrote:
The effectiveness of cuts like the Child Benefit seems a little dubious to me, Bob, you are in a minority, most folks never have or will earn more than £44K. However, that is the whole point. How many people are going to have this benefit denied now? Supposedly £1bn will be saved, how many new civil servants will have to be employed to check the incomes of all the peoeple now having to claim CB and then issue the new benefit? I pesume that this is of no cost? I doubt it. The simple arithmatic of removing so many CB claims is not the whole story. I presume the next thing will be the winter fuel payments, another universal benefit, then again we have to start checking people's incomes,more civil servants. State pensions to be means tested? Same again. Cuts get moere and more complicated and the number of u turns and convoluted wriggling by gutless politicians will end up not changing a damn thing except that the least able and most vulnerable will claim less and less because they don't have the education/confidence to withstand the accusations of being \"scroungers\". Without drastic cuts hitting the worst off in our society the current regime cannot deliver what they want, and that will be their undoing, they have no idea of what they are doing and care even less about who they affect.
Mr.Frost, nice avoidance of showing just how little you know about the history of VAT. Don't forget you grew your business with a nice little subsidy from the previous government. Every little helps as they say, maybe the last lot were not all bad after all eh?
Do you really think that the costs associated with making a net 1 billion pound saving won't have been taken into account? A bit naive don't you think?
Politicians taking headline figures to make a policy look better than it actually is? Savvy? I think you are not!
-
Filo wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Yes, although if you capable of reading past that, you would see that the post wasn't made in that vain.
So why make the point that it does n`t affect you at all?
you could have just said you agreed with it without stating that it does n`t affect you, I suspect that if it did affect you, you would be mightily pissed off and have a different point of view!
Fine on the basis of all the indignation over who cuts affect, I propose we just give everybody a big fookin payrise as if we never had any fiscal problems in this country!
In fact I think we should throw open the doors to the banks and allow everyone to help themselves to the tills. After all we haven't got any problems to sort out have we..........Jeez I despair.
Time we renamed this forum the 'Very Socialist Club', folk who live in LaLa land welcome only. I'm a Private sector worker without 'early retirement' dates and without heavily subsidised pensions and job security. I have never had that why should some of you think that you should be protected and subsidised by me and others ??
Of course some of you have my sympathy but reading the forum , listening to the news and reading the press.......we are not worthy of any support or sympathy ; just public sector workers.
Incidentally £44,000+ p.a. I would die for that sort of income and gladly give you back this supposed 'right' Filo.
Just what do you want this Govt. to do , pretend everything is hunkydory perhaps ?
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
It's the classic softening-up tactic. They want to wage war on the Welfare State. They reckon that the best way to do it is to wage a minor little war on the higher paid first off. That way, when the full carnage is unleashed on the poorer folk, they can say, \"Aye, but Jemima and Rupert in Sevenoaks are taking a hit an all.\"
BTW Hoola. The Lib Dems were much too left-wing to agree to this (at least BEFORE the Election they were). They categorically were against means-testing of child benefit (which is what this is) for precisely the reasons I state.
But then, Clegg is an irrelevance now. Did you see his interview when this policy was announced, followed by another one that is 180 degrees opposite to Liberal policy (the idea of having Married Couple tax allowances)? He looked like the bairn that had been told by the big lads that he could sit on the back seat of the school bus, but when it set off, they gave him and wedgie, made him suck their cocks in turn then chucked him out of the Emergency Exit.
Is he an irrelevance now Billy, are you sure ? When the going gets tougher and his support/his parties support dissipates then this Government is out fella. Hardly an irrelevance.
As for 'about turns' the Labour Party are doing daily U turns, a perfect example is the war in Afghanistan.
The Lib/Dems were/are against means testing as you quite rightly pointed out but the rules haven't changed merely the thresholds.....correct me if I'm wrong. I know I claim this particular benefit! The policy hasn't changed fella although it might suit your argument against your arch -nemesis to further have a dig at Clegg, who incidentally you have never forgiven for not choosing the path to a party who were never interested in a Coalition with them.
Labour merely thought their best interests lay in making long term capital out of some other party attempting to resolve the shite they left behind. However that of course could backfire badly on them !!
-
Well....um....maybe......they got it right. If we do all this so quickly we will get no growth in the economy, we might have to look at .....erm.... quantitative easing (spending to you and I). That isn't me, or any other socialist, that is a Tory minister.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11506387
-
Barmby Rover wrote:
quantitative easing (spending to you and I).
Erm...no. To me, quantative easing is the increasing of the money supply by means of increasing the amount of currency in circulation. Not spending. But then I did economics at college.
It's also 'you and me' in that context. :P
And since when has Chris Huhne been a Tory?
-
You're right Glyn- QE is nothing to do with spending. In fact, it is a method of both stimulating the economy AND keeping inflation at a level that will chip away at the accumulated debt- both personal and government debt.
Coupled with Huhne's statement (which would have been approved by Cameron and Clegg) and that hint from George Osborne himself that cuts might be staggered over a longer spell, we seem to be seeing a subtle but significant change in policy. The Government will say that cutting the deficit is priority No.1 (to do otherwise would spook the markets) but a close second is now avoiding a double-dip.
As for Child Benefit cuts, as a single bloke earning £25K I can't get too excited about this. However, it would have made more sense from where I'm sitting to just make the benefit taxable across the board. Then those who earn more get less. Simples!
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
And since when has Chris Huhne been a Tory?
When the Lib Dems ditched all their principles to jump into bed with the Tories ;)
-
hoolahoop wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
It's the classic softening-up tactic. They want to wage war on the Welfare State. They reckon that the best way to do it is to wage a minor little war on the higher paid first off. That way, when the full carnage is unleashed on the poorer folk, they can say, \"Aye, but Jemima and Rupert in Sevenoaks are taking a hit an all.\"
BTW Hoola. The Lib Dems were much too left-wing to agree to this (at least BEFORE the Election they were). They categorically were against means-testing of child benefit (which is what this is) for precisely the reasons I state.
But then, Clegg is an irrelevance now. Did you see his interview when this policy was announced, followed by another one that is 180 degrees opposite to Liberal policy (the idea of having Married Couple tax allowances)? He looked like the bairn that had been told by the big lads that he could sit on the back seat of the school bus, but when it set off, they gave him and wedgie, made him suck their cocks in turn then chucked him out of the Emergency Exit.
Is he an irrelevance now Billy, are you sure ? When the going gets tougher and his support/his parties support dissipates then this Government is out fella. Hardly an irrelevance.
As for 'about turns' the Labour Party are doing daily U turns, a perfect example is the war in Afghanistan.
The Lib/Dems were/are against means testing as you quite rightly pointed out but the rules haven't changed merely the thresholds.....correct me if I'm wrong. I know I claim this particular benefit! The policy hasn't changed fella although it might suit your argument against your arch -nemesis to further have a dig at Clegg, who incidentally you have never forgiven for not choosing the path to a party who were never interested in a Coalition with them.
Labour merely thought their best interests lay in making long term capital out of some other party attempting to resolve the shite they left behind. However that of course could backfire badly on them !!
Aye Hoola. An irrelevance. There simply to rubber stamp the Tory policies.
Every day a new one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11507537
Remind me. What exactly DO the Lib-Dems stand for? What policies of theirs have we seen from this Coalition (sic).
Rumour is that next year at the Lib-Dems' Conference, they'll have a Powerpoint presentation showing slides of their manifesto committments on a big wall with \"Another One Bites the Dust\" playing over the top as they flash from slide to slide.
-
I have to disagree, BST. They've won one very big concession, namely a referendum on Alternative Vote, which will be held in May 2011. Now I think AV is a very half-baked system (it isn't even proper PR) and I shall vote against it, but I have a feeling it will be voted in. When it is, the effect will be to give the Lib Dems several more seats than they might have won under FPTP and the possibility of many future coalition governments- in which the Lib Dems will mostly hold the balance of power.
That's why they are holding their noses and swallowing unpalatable Tory policies (although let's be fair, on areas such as civil liberties there are points of genuine agreement between the two parties.)
That's also why I think this coalition may have a limited life. If the Lib Dems get AV, they may be willing to gamble on breaking up the coalition as they could secure a similar number of seats on a reduced share of the vote. If the referendum goes against them, they have little or nothing to gain from remaining part of what will probably be, by then, a very unpopular government.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
It's the classic softening-up tactic. They want to wage war on the Welfare State. They reckon that the best way to do it is to wage a minor little war on the higher paid first off. That way, when the full carnage is unleashed on the poorer folk, they can say, \"Aye, but Jemima and Rupert in Sevenoaks are taking a hit an all.\"
BTW Hoola. The Lib Dems were much too left-wing to agree to this (at least BEFORE the Election they were). They categorically were against means-testing of child benefit (which is what this is) for precisely the reasons I state.
But then, Clegg is an irrelevance now. Did you see his interview when this policy was announced, followed by another one that is 180 degrees opposite to Liberal policy (the idea of having Married Couple tax allowances)? He looked like the bairn that had been told by the big lads that he could sit on the back seat of the school bus, but when it set off, they gave him and wedgie, made him suck their cocks in turn then chucked him out of the Emergency Exit.
Is he an irrelevance now Billy, are you sure ? When the going gets tougher and his support/his parties support dissipates then this Government is out fella. Hardly an irrelevance.
As for 'about turns' the Labour Party are doing daily U turns, a perfect example is the war in Afghanistan.
The Lib/Dems were/are against means testing as you quite rightly pointed out but the rules haven't changed merely the thresholds.....correct me if I'm wrong. I know I claim this particular benefit! The policy hasn't changed fella although it might suit your argument against your arch -nemesis to further have a dig at Clegg, who incidentally you have never forgiven for not choosing the path to a party who were never interested in a Coalition with them.
Labour merely thought their best interests lay in making long term capital out of some other party attempting to resolve the shite they left behind. However that of course could backfire badly on them !!
Aye Hoola. An irrelevance. There simply to rubber stamp the Tory policies.
Every day a new one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11507537
Remind me. What exactly DO the Lib-Dems stand for? What policies of theirs have we seen from this Coalition (sic).
Rumour is that next year at the Lib-Dems' Conference, they'll have a Powerpoint presentation showing slides of their manifesto committments on a big wall with \"Another One Bites the Dust\" playing over the top as they flash from slide to slide.
I can see Clegg losing his seat in the next general election, a good proportion of the voters in his Hallam constituency are students, the rest are Sheffielders that feel right royally f**ked after the Forgemasters episode, never mind he`ll still have his gold plated pension though!
-
Now that is the most ridiculous post of the week. Clegg the scapegoat for you then is he Filo ?
A new Maggie perhaps, Jeez there's some bitter Socialists on here that think if they keep slagging off Clegg then the Coalition will collapse.
Face it your party just weren't interested in a Coalition with the L/Dems and now you're whingeing. lol
-
hoolahoop wrote:
Now that is the most ridiculous post of the week. Clegg the scapegoat for you then is he Filo ?
A new Maggie perhaps, Jeez there's some bitter Socialists on here that think if they keep slagging off Clegg then the Coalition will collapse.
Face it your party just weren't interested in a Coalition with the L/Dems and now you're whingeing. lol
Tell me whats ridiculous about it, he's deputy pm and he's endorsed tory policies that go against the majority of his constituents interests. He's set the lib dems back 50 years by jumping into bed with Cameron
-
Presumably if he had agreed with a Labour policy against his party's /constituent's interests in a Lab/Lib Coalition ........you wouldn't have a lot to say about it eh ?
Now let me think, you would think how brave he was and what a risk he was taking in the country's interest. Amazing how the Socialists have all jumped onto their soapboxes immediately ; given the actions and continuous changes in direction of the last Govt. and the new opposition it is clear why I have concluded thus!
Don't bet on a collapse to the sort of support that the Liberals had 50 years ago, It might happen of course but I very much doubt that such an early prediction of their demise can be made on the evidence so far. The very opposite could happen if the economy radically im,proves over the next 18 months or so.
-
True Hoola. But it won't, will it? Glegg is going to nend up on the horns of a right pig of a painful dilemma: get the transferable vote sometime in the next couple of years and maybe rush to the polls - the obvious strategy. But when he does that, he's going to find firstly that he and his party are totally pointless when the choice, self evidently, is between Labour and Tory, and secondly, the economy is going to be so bad that he'll be afeard of the backlash anyway. So this government could likely stagger on for a while longer... And then he'll be wiped out. David Steel must be gnashing his teeth all day every day.
BobG
-
I reckon you're a tad tipsy Bob :laugh:
-
Has anyone seen Running Man?
I think a televised game show of this sort, with the winner keeping their child benefits.
Survival of the fittest.
-
hoolahoop wrote:
Presumably if he had agreed with a Labour policy against his party's /constituent's interests in a Lab/Lib Coalition ........you wouldn't have a lot to say about it eh ?
Now let me think, you would think how brave he was and what a risk he was taking in the country's interest. Amazing how the Socialists have all jumped onto their soapboxes immediately ; given the actions and continuous changes in direction of the last Govt. and the new opposition it is clear why I have concluded thus!
Don't bet on a collapse to the sort of support that the Liberals had 50 years ago, It might happen of course but I very much doubt that such an early prediction of their demise can be made on the evidence so far. The very opposite could happen if the economy radically im,proves over the next 18 months or so.
Hoola. What, exactly, were these \"continuous changes in direction\" of the previous Govt? As far as the economy went, they were ultra-consistent. They did precisely what they said they would do. Firstly, to gain the confidence of the electorate that they weren't the left-wing bogeymen that the Daily Mail was prophesying, they stuck to Kenneth Clarke's spending plans for the first four years. Thereafter, they slightly loosened the purse strings, resulting in higher public investment. (The results by the way are the incomparably better hospitals, schools, railways and civic infrastructure than we had in 1997.)
As Glyn has shown (with FACTS, not bar-room-bore opinions), the result was a sensible increase in public spending levels and total debt, above the damagingly low levels that the Thatcherites imposed on us.
And while we're talking about facts rather than opinions, it is a current FACT that the Lib-Dem support has crashed through the floor in the opinion polls. It's not me making a prediction. It is what poll after poll is finding. People have woken up to the fact that voting for the Lib-Dems is pointless and they are running away from them in their millions. It is utterly unprecedented for a party of Government to lose half its support within four months of taking office. But Clegg has managed to do it.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention
The Lib-Dems simply cannot recover from this. If the Tories' medicine works, it will have been the TORIES' medicine. If it doesn't work, then the electorate will be venomous in its revenge on the Lib-Dems for supporting them. No way out.
No point saying, \"Yes, but the Lib-Dems might soften the worst of the Tories' policies.\" They are losing every single argument. Look at Tuition Fees. Clegg gave a PERSONAL GUARANTEE that the Lib-Dems would not support higher fees. Cable (their most popular politician AND the minister responsible for Universities) tried a desperate tactic last month by going public and saying that he wanted a Graduate Tax (by far the fairest way of paying for Universities). He has now been humiliated into a climb-down, publicly stating that he will be implementing the Tories' preferred policy. So, as I have said, how exactly is this Govt different from a straightforward Tory one?
And to answer TRB's earlier point, what does it benefit a man if he wins AV (IF) and in doing so loses half the people who would vote for him anyway?
A tin-pot, amateurish party getting their comeuppance sharpish. They will be lucky to get 20 seats in the Highlands and Cornwall next time round.
-
Billy, there are many groups even within a single party that have to concede their particular interests and are unable to defend their own particular cinstituents positions. Why should that be any different in a Coalition party , am I missing something here ?
Cable didn't do an 'about turn', as you pointed out but they aren't going to win every argument or for that matter many of the arguments however hard they force the issues.
I don't understand your total disdain for their party or indeed their politicians and I'm gobsmacked to find that you have such disdain for the 'practised' politicians and political dogma that makes the Lib/Dems what they are!
How on earth can I share a debate with you , at any level, when you are clearly unable to discuss what they can and cannot do or who and what they represent when you clearly carry such negative political bias against their party. Did someone throw yellow paint over your car at some point ? lol
As for the final paragraph of your post , which incidentally completely betrayed your political bias against them. I offer you a bet, £2 per seat at the next elections below 50 for you and above 50 for me .
Are you on rascal.............?
A straight yes or no would be fine not further discussion on the issue, it's getting tiresome but the bet would be interesting. :)
-
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention
Wild fluctuations in this if you look very closely Billy i.e. one polll on 1/10 has L/Dems at 18%, hardly constitutes a complete collapse to the days of 5 seats for the Liberals does it ? I accept btw they are different parties but with many converging policies.
Would you have just a 2 party state btw ?
-
If I did betting I'd take you up Hoola. Simply because there is NO reason now to vote anything other than either Tory or Labour. Why should anyone at all vote Lib?
Cheers
BobG
-
hoolahoop wrote:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention
Wild fluctuations in this if you look very closely Billy i.e. one polll on 1/10 has L/Dems at 18%, hardly constitutes a complete collapse to the days of 5 seats for the Liberals does it ? I accept btw they are different parties but with many converging policies.
Would you have just a 2 party state btw ?
Look at the average. Ignore the fluctuations and look at the average. That's how to read it.
The Lib-Dems are polling lower than they did when Charles Kennedy was so kaylied that he lifted his kilt up and sang, \"Hoots mon there's a pissed up ginner loose aboot this Hoose\" at PMQs.
They are on their way to polling the sort of returns that the Liberals got in the 70s when their leader was bumming a male model then trying to have him shot (allegedly).
-
hoolahoop wrote:
Billy, there are many groups even within a single party that have to concede their particular interests and are unable to defend their own particular cinstituents positions. Why should that be any different in a Coalition party , am I missing something here ?
Cable didn't do an 'about turn', as you pointed out but they aren't going to win every argument or for that matter many of the arguments however hard they force the issues.
I don't understand your total disdain for their party or indeed their politicians and I'm gobsmacked to find that you have such disdain for the 'practised' politicians and political dogma that makes the Lib/Dems what they are!
How on earth can I share a debate with you , at any level, when you are clearly unable to discuss what they can and cannot do or who and what they represent when you clearly carry such negative political bias against their party. Did someone throw yellow paint over your car at some point ? lol
As for the final paragraph of your post , which incidentally completely betrayed your political bias against them. I offer you a bet, £2 per seat at the next elections below 50 for you and above 50 for me .
Are you on rascal.............?
A straight yes or no would be fine not further discussion on the issue, it's getting tiresome but the bet would be interesting. :)
Actually, the reason I despise them is that they have utterly devalued democracy. They stood for election on a series of policy issues that they have now totally discarded. That is mendacious and anti-democratic. Clegg tells us that he \"changed his mind a couple of days before the Election\" on the biggest economic issue to face this country in a lifetime. Kind of says it all...
It's not acceptable. Democracy is not about \"Vote for me cos I look good on the telly and don't worry too much about the details - I'll make your mind up for you after you've voted.\" The result is that, although only 36% of people voted for a party that advocated deep and drastic cuts, a second party that comprehensively did NOT stand on that policy has \"changed its mind\" and allowed the country to be pitched headlong into a terrifying neo-Thatcherite experiment in slash and burn at PRECISELY the time when it is potentially most damaging.
Go have a look at the second graph on this page.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10613201
That should scare the living shit out of anyone who really thinks about the issues. That shows that this recession is very similar to the ones of the early 80s and the early 30s. In both of those, the Govt followed policies like the ones that the Lib-Dems are now supporting - cut back the public sector whatever the cost. The results were catastrophic for millions. THAT is what we are now facing and THAT is why I hate these f**kers with a vengeance. Because they are allowing it to happen.
I actually have a lot of time for Vince Cable, who is a strong intellect and seems to be a fine, principled man. He has however been utterly shafted by Clegg and Alexander and the Tories. He's been given the Dept that will suffer the deepest cuts of all, and in particular, is being forced by the Coalition to reject one of the Lib-Dems' most popular policies among the young - on tuition fees.
But, since you're bored with the detailed debate, I'll give you your one word answer.
No.
But if you raise it to 50 quid, I'll snap your hand off here and now.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
The Lib-Dems are polling lower than they did when Charles Kennedy was so kaylied that he lifted his kilt up and sang, \"Hoots mon there's a pissed up ginner loose aboot this Hoose\" at PMQs.
They are on their way to polling the sort of returns that the Liberals got in the 70s when their leader was bumming a male model then trying to have him shot (allegedly).
Quality retort
Old Chaz, what a star
and then bettered by the one about Thorpey........Whooops Scotty
-
BobG wrote:
If I did betting I'd take you up Hoola. Simply because there is NO reason now to vote anything other than either Tory or Labour. Why should anyone at all vote Lib?
Cheers
BobG
Has there been for the last 75 years then Bob, the reason some might is simple like me............they bloody want to.
Such is democracy eh ? It is far easier for everyone to lace into the VERY minor party with the hope of splitting the Coalition. That too could be counter-productive!
Politics is a very fickle thing, my God how the Labour party has changed over those many years from their original ideals.
As for the bet being a good one, it's open to both you and Billy..........come on you two. You've forecast obliteration, not just the lose of a couple of seats. Easy money isn't it ?
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention
Wild fluctuations in this if you look very closely Billy i.e. one polll on 1/10 has L/Dems at 18%, hardly constitutes a complete collapse to the days of 5 seats for the Liberals does it ? I accept btw they are different parties but with many converging policies.
Would you have just a 2 party state btw ?
Look at the average. Ignore the fluctuations and look at the average. That's how to read it.
The Lib-Dems are polling lower than they did when Charles Kennedy was so kaylied that he lifted his kilt up and sang, \"Hoots mon there's a pissed up ginner loose aboot this Hoose\" at PMQs.
They are on their way to polling the sort of returns that the Liberals got in the 70s when their leader was bumming a male model then trying to have him shot (allegedly).
Dear dear dear you are a funny but very bitter man Billy, a veritable modern day Nostradamus. ;)
Incidentally the vagaries of politics would never entice me to bet 'silly' money on the future. The side bet was for fun and now you're trying to 'bigger bollox' me ?
It simply reflects your arrogance and tunnel vision when looking at political decisions that don't go your way. If I was to read your posts as an alien it would appear that the demonized ignorant and back-stabbing Clegg and his 'Tin pot' party were somehow in overall charge of this Coalition i.e. the decision makers .......they aren't fella and we all know it and your rationale for blaming him personally on each and every decision this Govt. takes is therefore seriously flawed.
Why because you ,despite all your posts to the contrary are totally unable to look at this situation without bias.
You forget the Labour/Tory changes of direction and fook me there have been myriads of them as there have been for all political parties ; with the decided purpose of implying that Clegg and Clegg alone a) has made all these decisions and b) that he alone of all particular leaders has ever had to change direction.
What the fook can he do...............? I know what you want him to do i.e. disappear/pull them out of the Coalition etc. but it just won't happen.
Bring back footy and stop fooking goading me, take the nice little side bet as a laugh and we can get on with life.
-
hoolahoop wrote:
Dear dear dear you are a funny but very bitter man Billy, a veritable modern day Nostradamus. ;)
Incidentally the vagaries of politics would never entice me to bet 'silly' money on the future. The side bet was for fun and now you're trying to 'bigger bollox' me ?
It simply reflects your arrogance and tunnel vision when looking at political decisions that don't go your way. If I was to read your posts as an alien it would appear that the demonized ignorant and back-stabbing Clegg and his 'Tin pot' party were somehow in overall charge of this Coalition i.e. the decision makers .......they aren't fella and we all know it and your rationale for blaming him personally on each and every decision this Govt. takes is therefore seriously flawed.
Why because you ,despite all your posts to the contrary are totally unable to look at this situation without bias.
You forget the Labour/Tory changes of direction and fook me there have been myriads of them as there have been for all political parties ; with the decided purpose of implying that Clegg and Clegg alone a) has made all these decisions and b) that he alone of all particular leaders has ever had to change direction.
What the fook can he do...............? I know what you want him to do i.e. disappear/pull them out of the Coalition etc. but it just won't happen.
Bring back footy and stop fooking goading me, take the nice little side bet as a laugh and we can get on with life.
No Billy Big Bollox intended Hoola. It was simply an expression of my confidence in my prediction. They are dead in the water. You simply do not recover from saying THIS in April:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_AMABsBNgw&NR=1
Then doing THIS in October:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9mUCPylveE
Labour's posters for the 2015 election have already been printed. THIS is the key image.
(http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2010//20100907_nus_photo_w.jpg)
The man is simply not a credible politician. Nothing personal, but he is utterly out of his depth and looking more stupid by the week.
I accept that there are difficult decisions to be made. Of course there are. That's politics. But what the last 6 months have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Lib-Dems are not a serious party with serious, honestly held principles and policies. They are a protest party. They are the party for people who don't really think about politics too deeply. They are a party who want to be all things to all people and who campaigns on a bunch of woolly, ill-thought out ideas that sound good at when you look at them individually, but that do not stack up to a coherent package.
If Clegg was a serious, mature politician, he would have realised in April that if he was successful in joining a coalition, he would be very likley to be in bed with the Tories, and would therefore be faced with a partner in Government that was committed to very, very different policies to his own party's. If he was prepared in April to be so balls out in highlighting where his key issues were (like tuition fees for example), then he should have also been savvy enough to realise that he would need to deliver on this. He hasn't. His party has caved in on yet another issue of principle.
So, I ask again. What exactly IS the point of the Lib-Dems? We are simply getting straightforward Tory policies put into action, from Trident, to public sector cuts, to tuition fees. If this is a coalition, where is the compromise on the other side? If the other side is not compromising, then what is the point in the Lib-Dems being there?
THAT is why their support has already collapsed, and why they will be decimated at the next Election.
PS: I'd be perfectly happy to bet the price of a pint on the Lib-Dems getting less than 50 seats at the next Election. In fact, to make it REALLY interesting, I'd bet on them getting less than 30. I'm not talking about them vanishing altogether. I'm talking about them reverting back to being an irrelevance. Which is what they have already shown in spades in the 4 months they have been in Government.
-
Excellent post and I don't disagree with most of your points Billy.
At some point the Lib/Dems may possibly deliver on some of their key areas rather than acceding to every Tory principle, that will probably come sooner than you think from the 'grassroots' of their party and their are signs of that already.
I believe when the calls get stronger the overall impact on their Parliamentary support for the Tories will start to force the hand of both Clegg and Cameron. If Lib/Dem support is pulled away and LD ministers fear for their livelihoods as MP's then and only then will you see more confrontational politics taking place.
It is obvious that compromises will have to take place very soon and I can't see the Tories allowing their grasp on long-awaited power to potentially be pulled away so soon in this their first Parliament........basically I think their is more of a struggle going on behind the scenes than is visible at present.
Tuition fees, Trident, Economic Policy are all areas where they have succumbed momentarily to the Tory grandees..........that will and must change soon.
Regarding them 'chucking away' all their beliefs, the same can be said as I stated earlier , by ALL political parties once faced with power. Unlike you I believe that all the parties have thrown away what were once some of their core principles not least the Labour Party itself sadly.
I do however think you may be underestimating the calibre of the LD's when describing them as some sort of 'fringe/Tin pot party. They have grown up significantly from the days of bearded hippies and lunatics that they once were.
A pint of Zigga Zagger it is then to the winner, the collapse won't happen and contrary to believe I understand their membership is growing and I wouldn't ever rely on polls taken in the early days of a new Parliament ........they mean jackshit. When you consider the economic mess and hard times we currently find ourselves in it is obvious that we all seek a scapegoat; unlike others I don't solely blame the Labour party for this. However if I was a Labour party member it would be tactically astute of me to try and destroy the credibility of the weaker party and force another election.
-
Ironically despite often moaning about university funding, I have no issue with an increase in fees if it means like is proposed those that end up in good jobs etc end up paying back at a decent rate, I'd have no issue with that.
It gets turned round as to driving around those of us from poorer backgrounds from uni.
Look at it this way from someone who's just finished 4 years of study and knows the pros and cons of it and what actually is turning lower class people away from further education having done a lot of work in that area in my last job.
The main reason is not fees, they get paid in full via a loan and it matters little if it's 3,6 or 10k if you pay it back at a similar rate when earning a similar amount. If I earn that amount I'll be greatful and happy to be paying back the education as it is giving me a benefit.
The main issue is actually the living and cost of university and this is where it's tough. The richer get masses from parents paying rent, buying books, buying food, big handouts etc meaning they can live a great life at uni. Therefore the rest of us have to struggle, we can't socialise like them, by the amount of clothes, food, textbooks etc as them and generally struggle.
The grant/loan system is inconsistent at the moment and what I found toughest was not the fees, that's taken care of, but the cost of being a student. I struggled to afford textbooks, struggled to find part time jobs, struggled to afford clothes, struggled to socialise as I just did not have the money. Now I struggled to find a job because many have experience through volunteering at uni. As I had to have 2 jobs to be able to afford to live volunteering was a tough ask. The issue I have is someone like me will get 4500 a year to live on. Everything must come out of that (rent, bills, textbooks, stationary, printing costs, clothes, food) - the lot. I'm actually better off now living with my parents for free at the moment and claiming JSA - that's a scary thing when you thing about it. The gulf is widening aswell. If fees are going to go up are costs going to come down? Will textbooks be cheaper or will you still have to shell out approaching 4-5 hundred quid a year on those? Will rent for first years in uni accomodation (pretty much the only real choice if you're moving a long way and want to meet new people) come down? At Sheffield where I studied a first year pays £97 a week minimum on rent, that comes out of the 4500 for 40 weeks leaving just £550. After buying your books that's about it. So where does food come from, clothes, bills etc? But nobody seems to be adressing this gap as it assumes we get cash from parents. Well we're not all in that position so it makes it very tough. Add on other costs like medication for ill people and there's another cost gone (I have to use a prepayment having a bad form of asthma meaning I take a lot of medication).
So when you look at it are fees a problem and barrier? In the short term not at all. In the long term it means you'll pay more when earning but at a higher level of earnings that's acceptable IMO and is fair. But how are the poorer of us supposed to cope and compete with the Mum and Dad brigade who get thousands from family? Well we can't and that is the real barrier for the lower classes like myself who have to spend a lot of time at work rather than studying or gaining work experience voluntarily where it matters post graduation. BIG BIG flaw in the system there.
But BST is right on one point. Students unions actively sought to encourage students to vote Lib Dem in oposition to fees being raised. I saw through that as I don't personally believe university should be free and I do believe we should pay back when we benefit after graduation (though none of my mates or myself have got work yet), that will hit Lib Dems hard no more so than in Nick Clegg's Hallam constituency which encompasses thousands of Sheffield Uni students who voted for him. Now I wasn't one of them but the majority did and now will regret that.