[DanaC]

They're looking to America for their ideas (though they always claim to be looking to some European or Scandinavian country). Yeah. Where the problem of poverty and worklessness is solved.

I swear they will not be content until we have cardboard cities sprouting on every large piece of wasteland and the poor have to wait until their asthma/diabetes/whatever chronic condition is at criss point before they can seek medical attention at A&E (and then get followed around by a £1200 bill).

And those who play ball, those who try to navigate the system, that bare few who qualify for assistance will be used as slave labour for their foodstamps, whilst private companies employ them at our expense.


Those old enough to remember Thatcher, most likely remember this speech by Neil Kinnock. Like him or loathe him, this speech said all that needs to be said about the Tories. It is as relevant today as it ever was then. This government, despite the allegedly calming hand of the LibDems, is going much, much further than Maggie ever dared.

If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as Prime Minister, I warn you.

I warn you that you will have pain - when healing and relief depend on payment.

I warn you that you will have ignorance - when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right.

I warn you that you will have poverty - when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a Government that won't pay, in an economy that can't pay.

I warn you that you will be cold - when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don't notice and the poor can't afford.

I warn you that you must not expect work - when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don't earn, they don't spend. When they don't spend, work dies.

I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.

I warn you that you will be quiet - when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.

I warn you that you will have defence of a sort - with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding.

I warn you that you will be home-bound - when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up.

I warn you that you will borrow less - when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.

If Margaret Thatcher wins, she will be more a Leader than a Prime Minister. That power produces arrogance and when it is toughened by Tebbitry and flattered and fawned upon by spineless sycophants, the boot-licking tabloid Knights of Fleet Street and placement in the Quangos, the arrogance corrupts absolutely.

If Margaret Thatcher wins -

I warn you not to be ordinary.
I warn you not to be young.
I warn you not to fall ill.
I warn you not to get old.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Its rising year on year because we have an aging population. The Tories are doing nothing to arrest its growth as its impossible to do so without touching pensions..and OAPs vote. They KNOW that over half the welfare budget goes on pensions/pension credit and such but they CHOSE to make out that its all JSA and cut away at what little those people have. When in reality they make up a tiny portion of the bill, but are baring the massive brunt of all of this rubbish. Hell, a few sheep even think that JSA/sickness benefit are actually the reason the country is in debt, with special thanks to the daily mail and its ilk.

The economy is picking up (IMO) in spite of the austerity measures, not because of. You cannot cut your way out of a recession.

Pensions is a big part of it but welfare is also rising, in 2005 there was £78b being spent, this year there is close to £117b

Do agree that they are making JSA etc. bear the brunt because like you say it would be political suicide to go after pensions, there's already enough criticism about that we don't do enough to look after our ageing population

[Suze]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't honestly think its too melodramatic to suggest that they want to kill off the poor

Removing disability benefits from those who needs them while telling them there are plenty of push button with your nose jobs..cutting HB knowing full well that there are no alternatives..seeming to want to abolish benefits altogether..slave labour..when the whole safety net goes as they seem to want, the options will be turn into a criminal (may aswell, being unemployed seems akin to being a criminal now anyway) or die off :S

Vicky, you are so on the ball and have the right sympathetic attitude to towards those who need it. I rarely disagree with your posts, especially of late on this forum. You should go into politics yourself, get your voice heard, in fact! Vicky for PM Get yourself in the next TIBBs party election

[DanaC]

Here's the thing though: if the govenment is spending all that money on benefits, that means all those people claiming have money to spend on food and soap and shampoo and milk and all those basics. If the benefits are only meagre, rather than inadequate for even basic survival, then they may also be spending on cheap tvs and toys for the kids at Christmas, the odd day out at Alton Towers during the summer holidays, a cup of coffee from a cafe whilst they're out and about. And any other of those cheap, small luxuries that made life more than mere subsistence survival.

Now, on the one hand you can look at that and say why should my taxes pay for them to do more than scrape by? On the other hand you can recognise that all that low level spending goes into the high street and the businesses that need customers in order to stay in business...

And if benefits are so meagre that it becomes impossible to live on them at all, then those with jobs also stop spending. Because who can risk spending when tomorrow may bring unemployment and that bring destitution?

And if all those people aren't spending, then the places where they used to spend will not thrive and will cut their cloth to avoid insolvency.

The tories have created, and will continue to create a secondary recession that is entirely demand led. And the more they cut the money in people's pockets, the more they cast unemployment as the bottom of the barrel, as the moral failure of those without jobs and as the most broken picture of existence, the more fearful those in work will be and the less able those out of work will be to participate in the market at even those most basic levels. And so demand will continue to fall and the demand led recession will continue to deepen.

But the top tier of society do not feel the recession. The top earners in the UK have increased both their wealth in real terms and their share of the wealth of the country. Whilst paying a smaller proportion of that wealth and income in taxes. And the gap is getting bigger, and it is getting bigger faster with every passing year of this.

That's why they're doing this. Everything they do increases the wealth of their own peers. The fact that there are families with two working adults that still aren't earning enough to put food on the table and clothes on their kids' backs is an irrelevance to them. And those who lose their jobs due to this demand led recession are no longer of any importance except in their function as warning signs to keep the rest of us focused the wrong in our anger.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Pensions is a big part of it but welfare is also rising, in 2005 there was £78b being spent, this year there is close to £117b

Do agree that they are making JSA etc. bear the brunt because like you say it would be political suicide to go after pensions, there's already enough criticism about that we don't do enough to look after our ageing population

Comparing to 2005 is a bit iffy really..considering we went through a huge recession

Obviously the bill will rise when more and more people are getting laid off and HAVE to claim benefits to live. Also, a massive proportion of benefits goes to people already in work..since we now have a load of 4 hour per week jobs and 0 hour contracts. This is why I tend to ignore the 'oh we have 100000 more people in work' stuff. Because most of the time, its not a 'real' job, simply a shuffling round and taking a few hours from existing staff to give to other people.

I absolutely disagree that anyone working fulltime (or near to fulltime) hours should have to claim benefits. I suspect if companies were made to pay a living wage (or the cost of living went down, whichever) the benefit bill would drop sharply.

Also, your chart includes pensions anyway, does it not? An looking at that, for the past 4 years or so, everythings been pretty steady

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Suze

Vicky, you are so on the ball and have the right sympathetic attitude to towards those who need it. I rarely disagree with your posts, especially of late on this forum. You should go into politics yourself, get your voice heard, in fact! Vicky for PM Get yourself in the next TIBBs party election

Thanks

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Here's the thing though: if the govenment is spending all that money on benefits, that means all those people claiming have money to spend on food and soap and shampoo and milk and all those basics. If the benefits are only meagre, rather than inadequate for even basic survival, then they may also be spending on cheap tvs and toys for the kids at Christmas, the odd day out at Alton Towers during the summer holidays, a cup of coffee from a cafe whilst they're out and about. And any other of those cheap, small luxuries that made life more than mere subsistence survival.

Now, on the one hand you can look at that and say why should my taxes pay for them to do more than scrape by? On the other hand you can recognise that all that low level spending goes into the high street and the businesses that need customers in order to stay in business...

And if benefits are so meagre that it becomes impossible to live on them at all, then those with jobs also stop spending. Because who can risk spending when tomorrow may bring unemployment and that bring destitution?

And if all those people aren't spending, then the places where they used to spend will not thrive and will cut their cloth to avoid insolvency.

The tories have created, and will continue to create a secondary recession that is entirely demand led. And the more they cut the money in people's pockets, the more they cast unemployment as the bottom of the barrel, as the moral failure of those without jobs and as the most broken picture of existence, the more fearful those in work will be and the less able those out of work will be to participate in the market at even those most basic levels. And so demand will continue to fall and the demand led recession will continue to deepen.

But the top tier of society do not feel the recession. The top earners in the UK have increased both their wealth in real terms and their share of the wealth of the country. Whilst paying a smaller proportion of that wealth and income in taxes. And the gap is getting bigger, and it is getting bigger faster with every passing year of this.

That's why they're doing this. Everything they do increases the wealth of their own peers. The fact that there are families with two working adults that still aren't earning enough to put food on the table and clothes on their kids' backs is an irrelevance to them. And those who lose their jobs due to this demand led recession are no longer of any importance except in their function as warning signs to keep the rest of us focused the wrong in our anger.

And this is exactly why I said earlier, you cannot cut your way out of a recession. The less people have, the less they spend, the less service jobs there are, less people employed as profits are down, and the cycle repeats again.

[Toy Soldier]

I've been saying for years that benefits money "floats" - it's not money down the drain, it's practically an economic investment. Benefits money doesnt get saved, invested or put away for a rainy day. Almost every last penny of it is spent, and most of that in retail. 20% of that benefits bill goes straight back to the government as VAT. A huge chunk of the rest of it is spent on food, clothes, electronics even, things that keep shops open and keep people in jobs. Austerity is a mistake. It's wrong-headed thinking put into force by people that have had an abundance of spending money for their entire life, and therefore don't actually understand the retail economy, because they have never and will never have to do anything other than reach into their back pocket in order to buy any small item they want on a whim.

[Kizzy]

It does, these 0hr temp jobs mean less money spent, nobody can borrow against that kind of job.
So people live hand to mouth unable to buy property.
Cutting taxes as tories seen to think is a draw for people to vote for them... But what is funding the economy? If it's not spending and tax?
Is it destined to be just the rich and business funding the economy?
If so we are moving to a new world order, no question.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Comparing to 2005 is a bit iffy really..considering we went through a huge recession

Obviously the bill will rise when more and more people are getting laid off and HAVE to claim benefits to live. Also, a massive proportion of benefits goes to people already in work..since we now have a load of 4 hour per week jobs and 0 hour contracts. This is why I tend to ignore the 'oh we have 100000 more people in work' stuff. Because most of the time, its not a 'real' job, simply a shuffling round and taking a few hours from existing staff to give to other people.

I absolutely disagree that anyone working fulltime (or near to fulltime) hours should have to claim benefits. I suspect if companies were made to pay a living wage (or the cost of living went down, whichever) the benefit bill would drop sharply.

Also, your chart includes pensions anyway, does it not? An looking at that, for the past 4 years or so, everythings been pretty steady

Could have picked any year really, just chose 2005 cos it seemed nice and round lol, the chart separates welfare and pensions (like this year there was £139b on pensions and £116.6 on welfare according to it)

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Could have picked any year really, just chose 2005 cos it seemed nice and round lol, the chart separates welfare and pensions (like this year there was £139b on pensions and £116.6 on welfare according to it)

Ahh right. Like the normal government figures should be when talking about welfare then

Will have a look later on I think for a breakdown of that. As I suspect that the number of in work benefits is rising quicker than anything else at the moment considering 90% or something of new housing benefit claims are made by those with jobs.

[Kizzy]

I'm not sure why that is seen as so acceptable these days either, when welfare was established it was for a safety-net for those in-between jobs... not those in work.
Why not put pressure on employers to pay a decent living wage to free them from being subsidised by benefits?

[DanaC]

because this way their 'job creator' friends can hire cheap labour, subsidized by our taxes.

[Kizzy]

It is a way for conservatives to invade every vein like a cancer...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm not sure why that is seen as so acceptable these days either, when welfare was established it was for a safety-net for those in-between jobs... not those in work.
Why not put pressure on employers to pay a decent living wage to free them from being subsidised by benefits?

The problem is that the cost of living (and most specifically, rent...) is so high that I'd say a living wage for a family would have to be at least 25,000 annually... Which after tax is deducted means that a full-time living wage would be in the region of £15 per hour which most employers simply could not afford as a minimum wage. They would have to let go of staff for it to be feasible.

I personally think, for it to be viable, that a living wage of around £10 per hour combined with a massive crackdown on rent costs, household fuel bills, and travel costs would be about right.

But, all of that assumes readily available FULL TIME (35 - 40 hours per week) employment... Proper full time hours are like gold dust at the moment. Zero hour contracts are common and even positions with salaries are often 20 or 25 hour. I think the govt. itself even classifies full time as 30 hours or more.

That needs addressing as well really. I know guys who work 50+ hour weeks every week, but more than half of it is classed as "overtime" and their flat contract reads 20 or even 16 hours. So their payslip is decent but they have no chance of, for example, getting a mortgage as no one will lend based on that - they'll only consider the 16 hours to be "secure" even if the person is actually working three times as many hours.

[Kizzy]

Exactly, there were laws put in place to restrict greedy landlords from exploiting those who needed to be near our towns and cities in times gone by.
Gone are the fair and clear contracts of employment, so it was possible to prove you had permanant and regular income for credit purposes now it seems these safeguards are being stripped away and society is effectively going backwards....