Are the Tories being more divisive on purpose?

pauldavid

Absolutely, my sister and the no good she mates with have a very nice life thank you, and all without ever lifting a bat.

pb21

pauldavid wrote:

Absolutely, my sister and the no good she mates with have a very nice life thank you, and all without ever lifting a bat.

What do you mean by 'a very nice life'? Can you qualify it, I am genuinely interested.

pb21

Anyway that’s not really the issue. I am sure the benefits system can be improved.

It’s the fact that the Tories seem to be pandering to people like yourself who seem to have this type of opinion regarding the recipients of benefits and therefore encouraging division in society.

daviesee

Backing up Pauldavid.
My sister. Not worked since '92. Split from husband 8 years ago, 4 children.

Has a detached 5 bedroom house, car, horse and 2 x 2 week holidays in Egypt per year. As far as I know, she does nothing illegal and is simply living off the State and the ex.

The normal assumption to this is that the ex is well off and subsidising the majority. Well, he isn't. He is skint and filing for bankruptcy. Therefore the State is funding her "very nice life". Yes. I think that qualifies.

My opinion. Any system will be abused. All the Government can do is to try and reduce the abuse by rich and lazy. Note that I differentiate between poor and lazy.

Jez mon

It would be nice to see a proper in detail financial breakdown of families living on benefits like the one in the above example.

Does sound like quite a nice life though!

Bobbinogs

I try not to get too upset by it all. The same government that is desparate to be seen as efficient and deficit reducing is the same lot that has just piffed away £40million on the railway fiasco and no doubt doing 10 times worse on the latest big project they get involved in (oh, Olympics anyone? That budget fiasco seems to have nicely been forgotten due to us getting a few gold medals). Thing is, "nothing's really different, all governments the same" as the Crass used to sing. Labour back in power? Yeah, that lot can be trusted when it comes to budgets and social justice, eh! LibDems, surely they wouldn't put up tuition fees, eh!

I hate all politics and all politicians, load of money grabbing gits lining their own pockets, so I try not to listen to any of the rubbish they come out with..."blah, blah, blah...it will all be different when we come into power"*, "blah, blah, blah...it is all someone else's fault"**. Keep spinning the plates, keep spinning the plates.

* to be used by all politicians out of office

** to be used by all politicians in office

alihisgreat

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Its not 'taking it out on the poor'...

Quite right, those at the top are feeling the pinch at the moment too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9233 ... evels.html

So now its not the effectiveness and efficiency of the welfare state that matters? yeah lets adjust the welfare state based upon an index of the sunday times rich list? Sounds like a great idea :roll:

pb21

daviesee wrote:

Backing up Pauldavid.
My sister. Not worked since '92. Split from husband 8 years ago, 4 children.

Has a detached 5 bedroom house, car, horse and 2 x 2 week holidays in Egypt per year. As far as I know, she does nothing illegal and is simply living off the State and the ex.

The normal assumption to this is that the ex is well off and subsidising the majority. Well, he isn't. He is skint and filing for bankruptcy. Therefore the State is funding her "very nice life". Yes. I think that qualifies.

My opinion. Any system will be abused. All the Government can do is to try and reduce the abuse by rich and lazy. Note that I differentiate between poor and lazy.

Whilst I don’t doubt you and it does seem strange and ‘nice’ that she can afford a horse and two holidays a year, it’s more what someone’s day to day lifestyle is like. Maybe she doesn’t spend any money ever on anything else?!
Like jez says it would be nice to see the financial breakdown of people on benefits to make a informed opinion.

daviesee

pb21 wrote:

Whilst I don’t doubt you and it does seem strange and ‘nice’ that she can afford a horse and two holidays a year, it’s more what someone’s day to day lifestyle is like. Maybe she doesn’t spend any money ever on anything else?!
Like jez says it would be nice to see the financial breakdown of people on benefits to make a informed opinion.

You are quite correct in that she has a very modest lifestyle* and doesn't spend much money other than outlined - including on her children. Always pleading poverty. Please. Don't. Get. Me. Started.
Edit:- sorry. Missed out the smokes, vodka and full Sky package, natch. I suppose the kids get to watch TV so at least they are not left out altogether. :evil:

*modest still has more foreign holidays than me and can ride here horse when she wants. I dream of the day I can ride my bike when I want and have 4 weeks foreign holidays and I am considered well off.

Frank the tank

paul_mck wrote:

jesus lads, you know we live in a capitalist country right?

Try communism, that works real well we can all be poor together

Even try the USA, queue all night to see a volunteer doctor, food stamps, the lot. Id much rather be out of work in this country than the US.

Eerrrrrrr 'cos we have a welfare state, you know, "benefits" what you agree should be cut. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a modification of the system but when they start they'll just keep looking for more to cut until they get into the benefits even you think shouldn't be cut. What then.

Frank the tank

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Of course they are.

Bash the unemployed and the working poor. Turn them against each other so they lose sight of the parasites at the top.

Divide and rule, baby.

Exactly this.

paul_mck

Frank the tank wrote:

paul_mck wrote:

jesus lads, you know we live in a capitalist country right?

Try communism, that works real well we can all be poor together

Even try the USA, queue all night to see a volunteer doctor, food stamps, the lot. Id much rather be out of work in this country than the US.

Eerrrrrrr 'cos we have a welfare state, you know, "benefits" what you agree should be cut. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a modification of the system but when they start they'll just keep looking for more to cut until they get into the benefits even you think shouldn't be cut. What then.

We vote labour back in and they sort it all out

Cleat Eastwood

The politics of the right has always been the politics of greed and self delusion.

What really gets me is that in our parliament we have a millionaire in red arguing with a millionaire in blue backed up by a millionaire in yellow on how those on 50 pound should shoulder the blame for a crisis of capital.

tiredofwhiners

Frank the tank wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Of course they are.

Bash the unemployed and the working poor. Turn them against each other so they lose sight of the parasites at the top.

Divide and rule, baby.

Exactly this.

Nothing like it.

If you taxed the guys at the top 100% tax, the amount of money would be trivial compared with the parasites at the bottom living off the state and doing nothing for it.

The parasites at the bottom will do it regardless of what the people at the top earn, and are taxed.

You do realise the top 10% earners pay something like the taxes of half of the population ? How much is enough before you will realise many are taking the state for a ride and have no interest in what others earn or how much taxes are paid as long as they get their unearned income.

paul_mck

I loved this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y28yFxLydzU

verylonglegs

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

The politics of the right has always been the politics of greed and self delusion.

What really gets me is that in our parliament we have a millionaire in red arguing with a millionaire in blue backed up by a millionaire in yellow on how those on 50 pound should shoulder the blame for a crisis of capital.

And yet people tolerate it, so are things really that bad? The younger generation are more enthused by x-factor votes than political ones, until that tide turns I suspect it will continue as is.

Cleat Eastwood

Not a royalist but it is still jubilee year, so a bit of respect please - i think you meant to write

tiredofwhiners wrote:

If you taxed the guys at the top 100% tax, the amount of money would be trivial compared with the monarchy living off the state and doing nothing for it.

The monarchy will do it regardless of what the people at the top earn, and are taxed.

Don't let it happen again - you're knighthoods at stake.

jawooga

The problem with Osborne and Cameron, is that they are not interested in fixing society where it is difficult to do so, and might require some effort. They talk about difficult decisions, but instead of going after benefit cheats at both ends of the spectrum, that might require due process and investment in the public sector to investigate where people are swinging the lead, they introduce short term cuts with sensationalist headlines.

Government would rather employ a statistician to say "dock the bottom x% from housing benefit, and you'll save £y million a year", because it is easy - use some divide and rule tactics and a bit of bullying, appeal to the Daily Mail middle England readership, job done. For example, I cannot understand how it is legal to cut housing benefits for the under-25s, which is surely discrimination based solely on age, notwithstanding circumstance as to why people may need to be living away from their parents.

I'm not a big fan of the way Labour cosied up to the City for 10 years, but at least they invested in public services e.g. schools that were falling to pieces until Labour invested public money. An analogy I would use is British Cycling and lottery money invested in other olympic sports; people who say you cannot throw money at something are only half right - without any, you're fucked.

An awful lot of the career politicians are odious little f.uckers, but Cameron and Osborne are right at the top IMHO. Have a look at their wikipedia pages, and see what sort of life experience they have that give them the right to make decisions on the welfare state.

alihisgreat

jawooga wrote:

The problem with Osborne and Cameron, is that they are not interested in fixing society where it is difficult to do so, and might require some effort. They talk about difficult decisions, but instead of going after benefit cheats at both ends of the spectrum, that might require due process and investment in the public sector to investigate where people are swinging the lead, they introduce short term cuts with sensationalist headlines.

Government would rather employ a statistician to say "dock the bottom x% from housing benefit, and you'll save £y million a year", because it is easy - use some divide and rule tactics and a bit of bullying, appeal to the Daily Mail middle England readership, job done. For example, I cannot understand how it is legal to cut housing benefits for the under-25s, which is surely discrimination based solely on age, notwithstanding circumstance as to why people may need to be living away from their parents.

I'm not a big fan of the way Labour cosied up to the City for 10 years, but at least they invested in public services e.g. schools that were falling to pieces until Labour invested public money. An analogy I would use is British Cycling and lottery money invested in other olympic sports; people who say you cannot throw money at something are only half right - without any, you're farked.

An awful lot of the career politicians are odious little f.uckers, but Cameron and Osborne are right at the top IMHO. Have a look at their wikipedia pages, and see what sort of life experience they have that give them the right to make decisions on the welfare state.

Its an electoral cycle thing.. look forward to some 'difficult' decisions being discussed in the year after the next election.. that's if we don't end up with another coalition though.

MaxwellBygraves

Rumour has it that after announcing his shares-for-rights plan, George Osborne has a new plan to offer some magic beans in exchange for your right to vote

Frank the tank

verylonglegs wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

The politics of the right has always been the politics of greed and self delusion.

What really gets me is that in our parliament we have a millionaire in red arguing with a millionaire in blue backed up by a millionaire in yellow on how those on 50 pound should shoulder the blame for a crisis of capital.

And yet people tolerate it, so are things really that bad? The younger generation are more enthused by x-factor votes than political ones, until that tide turns I suspect it will continue as is.

Heard on the radio yesterday in a survey Jessica Ennis came out as the top role model. Bottom and next bottom respectively were POLITIANS AND REALITY TV STARS.

Frank the tank

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Rumour has it that after announcing his shares-for-rights plan, George Osborne has a new plan to offer some magic beans in exchange for your right to vote

I wonder what the exchange rate will be, 10shares = 1 P45. which of course can be shown at your local benefits office where you can collect some reduced benefits.

Once again the greedy exploiting the gullible.

verylonglegs

Frank the tank wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

The politics of the right has always been the politics of greed and self delusion.

What really gets me is that in our parliament we have a millionaire in red arguing with a millionaire in blue backed up by a millionaire in yellow on how those on 50 pound should shoulder the blame for a crisis of capital.

And yet people tolerate it, so are things really that bad? The younger generation are more enthused by x-factor votes than political ones, until that tide turns I suspect it will continue as is.

Heard on the radio yesterday in a survey Jessica Ennis came out as the top role model. Bottom and next bottom respectively were POLITIANS AND REALITY TV STARS.

That doesn't really say anything unless you know who was asked though. For example, if it was a survey of kids at a local athletics club it indicates nothing significant.

paul_mck

only caught the headline on the shares for rights thing. that sounds bad.

BelgianBeerGeek

jawooga wrote:

The problem with Osborne and Cameron, is that they are not interested in fixing society where it is difficult to do so, and might require some effort. They talk about difficult decisions, but instead of going after benefit cheats at both ends of the spectrum, that might require due process and investment in the public sector to investigate where people are swinging the lead, they introduce short term cuts with sensationalist headlines.

Government would rather employ a statistician to say "dock the bottom x% from housing benefit, and you'll save £y million a year", because it is easy - use some divide and rule tactics and a bit of bullying, appeal to the Daily Mail middle England readership, job done. For example, I cannot understand how it is legal to cut housing benefits for the under-25s, which is surely discrimination based solely on age, notwithstanding circumstance as to why people may need to be living away from their parents.

I'm not a big fan of the way Labour cosied up to the City for 10 years, but at least they invested in public services e.g. schools that were falling to pieces until Labour invested public money. An analogy I would use is British Cycling and lottery money invested in other olympic sports; people who say you cannot throw money at something are only half right - without any, you're farked.

An awful lot of the career politicians are odious little f.uckers, but Cameron and Osborne are right at the top IMHO. Have a look at their wikipedia pages, and see what sort of life experience they have that give them the right to make decisions on the welfare state.

PFI, wasn't it? All off the Govt balance sheets and a massive rip-off. Yes, PFI was a Tory idea, but Labour couldn't get enough of it.

laurentian

"Labour Invested Public Money"

I think this is the crux of the problem. Whether invested directly in infrastructure or improved benefits it was money the country did not have.

I am no supporter of any political party and, like someone mentioned above, believe that sadly most politicians are in it for their own career improvement but spending money we don't have is not sustainable in the long term.

This is really not difficult to understand: Outgoing cash is exceeding income.

It is also not difficult to remedy: Increase taxation or decrease expenditure.

The obvious cry would be to tax the rich more but historical fact (check it out) tells us that, even in the days when the richest were taxed at 90%, the total net tax collected stayed at a constant 38% (I think) of the total earned. As those liable for the much higher rates choose not to pay it by moving out of the country or other means of avoidance. I believe this 38% has remained stable for decades.

Whilst the total % collected remains constant (as history tells us it will) and income is less or reducing (ie less jobs in the private sector), the only options appear to me to be to freeze or reduce money spent in the public sector until such a time as that 38% is a significantly higher figure (ie still 38% but of a bigger "pot"). Unless someone can explain to me another way? The more the rich spend the more will be collected in taxes (most obviously VAT) and, hopefully, the more money will be available to invest in growing and starting businesses. The poor have never been made richer by making the rich poorer.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are people who need and deserve benefit payments. It is a cornerstone of our society and should remain so. I also have no doubt that there are people who play the system at the "bottom end" and those who avoid/evade tax at the "top end". Both of these need addressing quickly.

Our welfare state can be a wonderful thing but, in all its shape and forms, it costs money. In global terms, it is a "nice to have". If there is no money there (and all parties are agreed on this), some of it needs to be reduced. Whether that is in numbers of nurses or how much money nurses earn, reduction in benefits or whatever, it is a mathematical reality - no amount of protests, strikes or political rhetoric will change that.

There is a certain degree of "divide and rule" going on with the latest Osbourne speech but the thought process would have been something like:

Q. "how can we save public money?"
A. "Reduce benefits"
Q. "How do we do that without p!ssing people off?"
A. "Take it away from those that most people dislike"
Q" Who's that?"
A "Those lazy ars3d f**@ers in track suits that no-one likes"

"Brilliant! costs the taxpayer nothing and we pander to the Daily Mail demographic - winner!!

MaxwellBygraves

Tory conference: 'Britain risks becoming a totalitarian state as a result of gay marriage and could go the way of Nazi Germany' - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10 ... 48250.html

pb21

When was the last time a member of the tory party hugged a hoody or a polar bear? Now they vilify hoodies and relax laws to bulldoze green land.

I can’t believe people fell for the PR guff Cameron threw out before the last election.

AchillesLeftKnee

pb21 wrote:

I can’t believe people fell for the PR guff Cameron threw out before the last election.

I believed Brown in 1997 when he said he was going to pursue counter-cyclical policies, not let the housing market get out of control, and take a generally prudent approach to public finances. I ended up voting Red Team on the basis of those promises. I won't bother to fill in the rest because we all know what actually happened. Chuck in the Second Gulf War, and I think it's safe to say the current crap... crap... CROP, I mean crop, of Tories aren't even fit to lick Labour's boots when it comes to being brimming over with bullsh!t.

jonomc4

How about looking at this from another angle?

Why should someone not working have a house but a person working two jobs not be able to save enough to buy one? We end up with a crazy situation where if you want a house you are better off not working.

Why should unemployments benefits continue to rise at a higher rate than that of wages?

You can only fix society by creating an environment in which it pays to contribute to it - not just take from it. That way the welfare system can properly look after the people who really need that help.

People seem to be obsessed with the genuine cases - I tell you from personal and professional experience the amount of fraudulent claims on a welfare is endemic - why instead of attacking people who are trying to change this - don't you attack the people abusing the system - they are the people who are ruining it for all the people who genuinely need help. Welfare should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice.