So any thoughts folks..
My personal favourite moment has been the sky news cox pops where they asked some slug what his thoughts were on this.
He replied the welfare cuts which wasn't surprising when it flashed his name and "profession" pawnbroker.
Odious little turd but I suppose it seems it all up as long as the governments friends remain untouched everyone who counts (according to them) is happy and will carry on voting for them.
Jeffrey's spending review
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gentleman
Well, it illustrates how badly Boy George has done with his economic plans.
When he got into power, he undertook to balance the books by 2015. Instead we have further austerity outlined today for 2015-16 and probably for many years thereafter. Boy George is expected to borrow ?265 billion more by 2015 than he anticipated in 2010.
So it has the overall air of trying to run up the down escalator. The debt continues to rise. The deficit was the same in the last financial year as it was in the previous financial year and will be similar in the coming year. So it's austerity, austerity, austerity which is having no effect on the deficit.
And no-one from any political party has come up with a convincing explanation as to why the less well off, the middle classes, the public sector, the welfare state etc. etc. has to take an almighty kicking for an economic crisis caused by an investment banking collapse.
At this rate when paying corporation tax for multi-nationals is a voluntary procedure i.e. Starbucks "We'll pay a bit of corporation tax this year, because our customers want us to", it is difficult to see how without substantial growth the deficit will ever get sorted out.
When he got into power, he undertook to balance the books by 2015. Instead we have further austerity outlined today for 2015-16 and probably for many years thereafter. Boy George is expected to borrow ?265 billion more by 2015 than he anticipated in 2010.
So it has the overall air of trying to run up the down escalator. The debt continues to rise. The deficit was the same in the last financial year as it was in the previous financial year and will be similar in the coming year. So it's austerity, austerity, austerity which is having no effect on the deficit.
And no-one from any political party has come up with a convincing explanation as to why the less well off, the middle classes, the public sector, the welfare state etc. etc. has to take an almighty kicking for an economic crisis caused by an investment banking collapse.
At this rate when paying corporation tax for multi-nationals is a voluntary procedure i.e. Starbucks "We'll pay a bit of corporation tax this year, because our customers want us to", it is difficult to see how without substantial growth the deficit will ever get sorted out.
Re Jeffrey's spending review
David Johnson wrote:
> .........................
> it is difficult to see how without substantial growth the
> deficit will ever get sorted out.
Exactly.
I know I'm repeating content from previous posts but without the creation of a couple of million real jobs paying a living wage there will never be a cut in benefit payouts let alone a real increase in income from personal and corporate taxation.
Another ?10 billion has been committed to HS2 to further burden future governments. The current ?42 billion cost roughly equates to ?100 per year for 10 years from everybody in the UK over 18.
This should be spent on creating jobs so cutting imports plus reducing the distances people are travelling each day. Hence even with more people working the passenger / kilometres would fall, similarly road congestion would be eased as well as reducing the volume of non-renewable energy used for non-productive transport plus the pollution created.
With people spending less time and money travelling there ought to be a resurgence in evening trade - pubs, restaurants, theatre etc. and probably weekend breaks too all creating both employment and income from VAT and business profits.
> .........................
> it is difficult to see how without substantial growth the
> deficit will ever get sorted out.
Exactly.
I know I'm repeating content from previous posts but without the creation of a couple of million real jobs paying a living wage there will never be a cut in benefit payouts let alone a real increase in income from personal and corporate taxation.
Another ?10 billion has been committed to HS2 to further burden future governments. The current ?42 billion cost roughly equates to ?100 per year for 10 years from everybody in the UK over 18.
This should be spent on creating jobs so cutting imports plus reducing the distances people are travelling each day. Hence even with more people working the passenger / kilometres would fall, similarly road congestion would be eased as well as reducing the volume of non-renewable energy used for non-productive transport plus the pollution created.
With people spending less time and money travelling there ought to be a resurgence in evening trade - pubs, restaurants, theatre etc. and probably weekend breaks too all creating both employment and income from VAT and business profits.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Sparky
And you can see the results of austerity and no growth in the welfare bill. It has gone up 21% under the coalition.
In Prime Minister Questions today Miliband absolutely destroyed Cameron by asking how many infrastructure projects had been started/completed etc. and Cameron clearly did not have a clue.
Miliband said the government had promised that 261 schools would be refurbished or rebuilt through its flagship Priority School Building Programme, but to date construction had only started on one project.
He said the government had detailed 571 priority projects in its 2011 infrastructure plan, but construction had only started on seven of those.
In Prime Minister Questions today Miliband absolutely destroyed Cameron by asking how many infrastructure projects had been started/completed etc. and Cameron clearly did not have a clue.
Miliband said the government had promised that 261 schools would be refurbished or rebuilt through its flagship Priority School Building Programme, but to date construction had only started on one project.
He said the government had detailed 571 priority projects in its 2011 infrastructure plan, but construction had only started on seven of those.
Re: Sparky
David Johnson wrote:
> ....
> In Prime Minister Questions today Miliband absolutely destroyed
> Cameron by asking how many infrastructure projects had been
> started/completed etc. and Cameron clearly did not have a clue.
>
> Miliband said the government had promised that 261 schools
> would be refurbished or rebuilt through its flagship Priority
> School Building Programme, but to date construction had only
> started on one project.
>
> He said the government had detailed 571 priority projects in
> its 2011 infrastructure plan, but construction had only started
> on seven of those.
while we 'pay' 2.5 million to sit on their arses or do cash jobs on the side .....
Yes there is the cost of materials and rate of pay would probably be higher but at least we would be getting something for our money.
> ....
> In Prime Minister Questions today Miliband absolutely destroyed
> Cameron by asking how many infrastructure projects had been
> started/completed etc. and Cameron clearly did not have a clue.
>
> Miliband said the government had promised that 261 schools
> would be refurbished or rebuilt through its flagship Priority
> School Building Programme, but to date construction had only
> started on one project.
>
> He said the government had detailed 571 priority projects in
> its 2011 infrastructure plan, but construction had only started
> on seven of those.
while we 'pay' 2.5 million to sit on their arses or do cash jobs on the side .....
Yes there is the cost of materials and rate of pay would probably be higher but at least we would be getting something for our money.
Re: Sparky
sparky wrote:
>
> while we 'pay' 2.5 million to sit on their arses or do cash
> jobs on the side .....
Ah but as David Johnson said it is not worth getting a lot of those people into jobs. And I still don't understand his logic...
>
>
> while we 'pay' 2.5 million to sit on their arses or do cash
> jobs on the side .....
Ah but as David Johnson said it is not worth getting a lot of those people into jobs. And I still don't understand his logic...
>
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad
Yes I remember you seemed to struggle to understand the logic.
What I tried to explain was that what this country has is not particularly a "scroungers" benefit problem though that isn't to say there aren't people fiddling benefits, but a lack of jobs problem with umpteen people chasing jobs. And in an attempt to explain it to you I stated the following
"1. 440,00 long term unemployed (often referred to by the GOVERNMENT as "scroungers", go into work. Of course that brings a financial benefit to the country in terms of what they spend.
2. However, by the GOVERNMENT overwhelmingly concentrating on what THEY regard as "scroungers" it ignores the fact that there are umpteen people on average chasing work who the GOVERNMENT would probably admit if pushed are "non-scroungers". So the benefit that is accrued to the state in taxes paid is the same whether scroungers or non-scroungers fill the jobs.
3. SO what we have is not so much a "scroungers" problem as the government bang on about , but a jobs problem. And there is no financial benefit to the GOVERNMENT in forcing what they regard as scroungers into work as opposed to seeing the jobs filled by non-scroungers .
And I put this "scroungers" v. "skivers" thing in a wider context by trying to explain what the key problems facing UK PLC are
"So in order to reduce the deficit, the main problems we have are as follows:
1. A Jobs crisis. If you have no growth which is the situation the UK has been in for the last 2 and a half years, there is no way you can pay off the debt. The social security bill will continue to be too high. The social security bill has gone up under the Tories.
2. A Housing crisis. Margaret Thatcher sold off a 1 million council houses during her time in power and refused to allow councils to replace them. Neither the Labour government nor the coalition have done anything much at all to improve that situation. As a result housing benefit has soared as the cost of private rented housing is on the whole higher than the cost of council housing. So what housing benefit should be regarded as is scrounging private landlords' subsidy. We need more council houses to be built and rent controls to reduce the extortionate rates that can be charged in the private sector in many of our cities.
3. A Low Pay crisis. In many parts of the country housing benefits and tax credits are the only reason people are able to actually work and not starve. Tax credits should be called the scrounging employer subsidy. What is needed is a living not minimum wage to reduce the tax credit bill. The Tories and the corporates will whinge but so they did when Labour introduced the minimum wage.
4. A Tax avoidance and Tax Evasion crisis. This should be known as a scrounging Corporates subsidy. A concentrated effort to reduce that would have a huge impact on the deficit."
What I tried to explain was that what this country has is not particularly a "scroungers" benefit problem though that isn't to say there aren't people fiddling benefits, but a lack of jobs problem with umpteen people chasing jobs. And in an attempt to explain it to you I stated the following
"1. 440,00 long term unemployed (often referred to by the GOVERNMENT as "scroungers", go into work. Of course that brings a financial benefit to the country in terms of what they spend.
2. However, by the GOVERNMENT overwhelmingly concentrating on what THEY regard as "scroungers" it ignores the fact that there are umpteen people on average chasing work who the GOVERNMENT would probably admit if pushed are "non-scroungers". So the benefit that is accrued to the state in taxes paid is the same whether scroungers or non-scroungers fill the jobs.
3. SO what we have is not so much a "scroungers" problem as the government bang on about , but a jobs problem. And there is no financial benefit to the GOVERNMENT in forcing what they regard as scroungers into work as opposed to seeing the jobs filled by non-scroungers .
And I put this "scroungers" v. "skivers" thing in a wider context by trying to explain what the key problems facing UK PLC are
"So in order to reduce the deficit, the main problems we have are as follows:
1. A Jobs crisis. If you have no growth which is the situation the UK has been in for the last 2 and a half years, there is no way you can pay off the debt. The social security bill will continue to be too high. The social security bill has gone up under the Tories.
2. A Housing crisis. Margaret Thatcher sold off a 1 million council houses during her time in power and refused to allow councils to replace them. Neither the Labour government nor the coalition have done anything much at all to improve that situation. As a result housing benefit has soared as the cost of private rented housing is on the whole higher than the cost of council housing. So what housing benefit should be regarded as is scrounging private landlords' subsidy. We need more council houses to be built and rent controls to reduce the extortionate rates that can be charged in the private sector in many of our cities.
3. A Low Pay crisis. In many parts of the country housing benefits and tax credits are the only reason people are able to actually work and not starve. Tax credits should be called the scrounging employer subsidy. What is needed is a living not minimum wage to reduce the tax credit bill. The Tories and the corporates will whinge but so they did when Labour introduced the minimum wage.
4. A Tax avoidance and Tax Evasion crisis. This should be known as a scrounging Corporates subsidy. A concentrated effort to reduce that would have a huge impact on the deficit."
Re: Essex Lad
David Johnson wrote:
> Yes I remember you seemed to struggle to understand the logic.
>
> What I tried to explain was that what this country has is not
> particularly a "scroungers" benefit problem though that isn't
> to say there aren't people fiddling benefits, but a lack of
> jobs problem with umpteen people chasing jobs. And in an
> attempt to explain it to you I stated the following
>
> "1. 440,00 long term unemployed (often referred to by the
> GOVERNMENT as "scroungers",
Can you find me some instances of Government spokesmen or ministers referring to 440,000 long term unemployed as "scroungers".
>
> 2. However, by the GOVERNMENT overwhelmingly concentrating on
> what THEY regard as "scroungers" it ignores the fact that there
> are umpteen people on average chasing work who the GOVERNMENT
> would probably admit if pushed are "non-scroungers". So the
> benefit that is accrued to the state in taxes paid is the same
> whether scroungers or non-scroungers fill the jobs.
But in what way are the Government concentrating on the longterm unemployed? They don't seem to be saying: find a job or we will stop your benefits. Where is this "war" on the longterm unemployed?
My point was there are 2-3 million people unemployed in this country (probably more if you include the longterm sick, youngsters and others who for one reason or another are not working). We really don't need to import foreigners to fill these vacancies. Yes, some of the jobs will be boring, minimum wage one but these will always exist.
>
> 3. SO what we have is not so much a "scroungers" problem as
> the government bang on about , but a jobs problem. And there
> is no financial benefit to the GOVERNMENT in forcing what they
> regard as scroungers into work as opposed to seeing the jobs
> filled by non-scroungers .
>
What does it matter who fills the jobs?
> Yes I remember you seemed to struggle to understand the logic.
>
> What I tried to explain was that what this country has is not
> particularly a "scroungers" benefit problem though that isn't
> to say there aren't people fiddling benefits, but a lack of
> jobs problem with umpteen people chasing jobs. And in an
> attempt to explain it to you I stated the following
>
> "1. 440,00 long term unemployed (often referred to by the
> GOVERNMENT as "scroungers",
Can you find me some instances of Government spokesmen or ministers referring to 440,000 long term unemployed as "scroungers".
>
> 2. However, by the GOVERNMENT overwhelmingly concentrating on
> what THEY regard as "scroungers" it ignores the fact that there
> are umpteen people on average chasing work who the GOVERNMENT
> would probably admit if pushed are "non-scroungers". So the
> benefit that is accrued to the state in taxes paid is the same
> whether scroungers or non-scroungers fill the jobs.
But in what way are the Government concentrating on the longterm unemployed? They don't seem to be saying: find a job or we will stop your benefits. Where is this "war" on the longterm unemployed?
My point was there are 2-3 million people unemployed in this country (probably more if you include the longterm sick, youngsters and others who for one reason or another are not working). We really don't need to import foreigners to fill these vacancies. Yes, some of the jobs will be boring, minimum wage one but these will always exist.
>
> 3. SO what we have is not so much a "scroungers" problem as
> the government bang on about , but a jobs problem. And there
> is no financial benefit to the GOVERNMENT in forcing what they
> regard as scroungers into work as opposed to seeing the jobs
> filled by non-scroungers .
>
What does it matter who fills the jobs?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Essex Lad
You would have to have been on a desert island not to see that the Tory led coalition spent most of 2012 trying to set workers against unemployed by giving the impression that the unemployed are scroungers backed up by a ferocious tabloid campaign e.g.
In an interview with the Guardian, Iain Duncan Smith said many people on benefits see those who take up job offers as ?morons? and, the paper reported, claimed it wasn?t worth coming off the dole for less than ?15,000 a year.
Osborne made reference to hard working "strivers" getting up early in the morning to go to work whilst their neighbours were behind drawn bedroom curtains.
A Tory online advert in late 2012 showing a man on a sofa, asked whether the Government should support "hard-working families or people who won't work".
Shelbrooke, a parliamentary private secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, said the private members bill plan to introduce benefit cards which could not be used to buy alcohol and cigarettes would end the 'damaging perception' that those who claimed benefits were scroungers who sponge off the state. etc etc.
"Where is this "war" on the longterm unemployed?"
Nowhere do I say that, so I will leave you to answer your own question. What I do say is that there has been an attempt by the Tories to demonise the unemployed in order for them to make it easier to pass their welfare cuts. Just as there was a campaign to demonise public sector workers and their "gold plated pensions" according to Francis Maude in order to get their public sector reforms through. Conjuring up the picture of retired school dinner ladies driving around in Jags.
We have been over this extensively in the past on this forum. If you don't agree than that is obviously your prerogative. No more to be said really.
In an interview with the Guardian, Iain Duncan Smith said many people on benefits see those who take up job offers as ?morons? and, the paper reported, claimed it wasn?t worth coming off the dole for less than ?15,000 a year.
Osborne made reference to hard working "strivers" getting up early in the morning to go to work whilst their neighbours were behind drawn bedroom curtains.
A Tory online advert in late 2012 showing a man on a sofa, asked whether the Government should support "hard-working families or people who won't work".
Shelbrooke, a parliamentary private secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, said the private members bill plan to introduce benefit cards which could not be used to buy alcohol and cigarettes would end the 'damaging perception' that those who claimed benefits were scroungers who sponge off the state. etc etc.
"Where is this "war" on the longterm unemployed?"
Nowhere do I say that, so I will leave you to answer your own question. What I do say is that there has been an attempt by the Tories to demonise the unemployed in order for them to make it easier to pass their welfare cuts. Just as there was a campaign to demonise public sector workers and their "gold plated pensions" according to Francis Maude in order to get their public sector reforms through. Conjuring up the picture of retired school dinner ladies driving around in Jags.
We have been over this extensively in the past on this forum. If you don't agree than that is obviously your prerogative. No more to be said really.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
What some Tories think about scroungers/skivers
One Tory minister told The Independent: "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury. Some people who lose their jobs and many people on tax credits, are strivers not scroungers. Young people looking hard for their first job are not skivers; there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party. The message should be that we are making work pay."
Martin Vickers, Tory MP for Cleethorpes, where 500 jobs will be lost when the Kimberly-Clark nappy firm closes a plant, said: "I support the Bill but we must not tar everyone with the same brush. Some people in my constituency who will be on benefits for a few months; in no sense will they be scroungers." Sarah Wollaston, Tory MP for Totnes, said: "We have to be very careful about the language that we use ? I don't feel it's right to use words like skivers. It might rhyme with strivers but it doesn't mean that it's the right word to use for people on benefits."
Martin Vickers, Tory MP for Cleethorpes, where 500 jobs will be lost when the Kimberly-Clark nappy firm closes a plant, said: "I support the Bill but we must not tar everyone with the same brush. Some people in my constituency who will be on benefits for a few months; in no sense will they be scroungers." Sarah Wollaston, Tory MP for Totnes, said: "We have to be very careful about the language that we use ? I don't feel it's right to use words like skivers. It might rhyme with strivers but it doesn't mean that it's the right word to use for people on benefits."