You have a point up to a point. The difference here is that it wa set up in a reckless way , dishing out money willy nilly and a blind eye was turned to the fraud and gaping holes.
At least with Maggie you got a house and along with that came responsibility . The tax credit handout is why we have a "take take take" mentaility .
We live in a generation of rights not responsibility - I think that is the lasting social legacy of Messrs Blair & Brown
... what figure the millions not claimed.
There were many who didn't claim but could have, either because they did not want to for reasons of pride, self respect etc (not saying rightly or wrongly, just a fact) and countless who knew what a shambles it was and were risk adverse to being stung for a repayment of hundreds/thousands of pounds potentially overpaid.
Has that been netted off the bogus and miscalculated claims?
Come on...do you really really think that the non-claimants amount to a large number , so much so to offest the dodgy claims ?
Yes I think there are a significant number, but I didn't say I thought it would offset ALL the dodgy ones (few of my clients claimed it), but I am pedantic and like accurate figures - it adds credibility.
I am sick of the modern trend of picking what news to report - I want all or nothing. Is it £10billion net or £10billion dodgy and £1billion unclaimed = £9billion loss? (figures just for illustration)
As to politicians, I agree you couldn't slide a fag paper between any of them whatever colour rosette they wear, but the Tories make no pretence about wanting power and to get their snouts in the trough, they don't claim to stand for the rights of the "working" man.
I agree but the electorate don't fully grasp how Tony Blair stole the Tory clothes. The point is moot because we are where we are and unless the bland Mr Miliband takes the party back into the union-run caves from whence they crawled out, we're stuck with 2 centrist parties.
However , 2 things are now the crucial issue for voters:
1) Europe - Labour are on the wrong side of the voting fence
2) Economy - people may brand the Tories are heartless and nasty but deep down they know that the medicine is what is needed and Labour really cannot be trusted on the economy.
So perhaps a wedge is slowly driving between them - all we need is a long pre-election campaign to drive the wedge harder and force them apart
... and if DC had any balls he would call an in out referendum asap and a walk a spring election, because at the moment UKIP are siphoning off the grassroots Tories and the goldfish in the middle are already fogetting it was New Labour that put us in the mire!
I think he needs to keep it on the boil and go for the in/out vote at the end of year 3 , or perhaps have a joint election and referendum (keeps costs down)
The BIG question is how to present the gain / loss to the the great British public. There does not seem to be a concensus of what the economic impact would be.
I would be very surprised if British companies lost trade. We do a lot of specialist manufacturing in UK so if it's good you'll still buy it.
Bring on the vote !
... it reaffirmed my belief in God, otherwise we would still be suffering under New Labour!
I have little faith is the finance guru's and their predictions, I think the current situation demonstrates why!
At the end of the day politics and governments are just another hazard for commerce to negotiate, and with the global market we now have localised economic regions are out-dated and more of a hinderance than a help.
Trade will happen whatever, and no one is going to put trade barriers up against us because they need us as an export market as much as we need them.
A quote from IDS ...
'You have to remember it was Denis Healey who did most of the serious hard work, the heavy lifting, before Mrs Thatcher came in,' said Mr Duncan Smith.
'Had she come in without Healey's work in the IMF, I don't think she'd have lasted two years. She would have been out in 1983.
However, the normal state of affairs is to blame the previous government for any balls up (even when it is the same party), and the current government takes the credit for any improvements. This applies to all the parties!
All politicians are expert in the art of spin, and that is how they get power. It certainly isn't related to honesty & integrity.
Soemtiems one has to be cruel to be kind . Gettign people off benefits and into work is a tremendous act of kindness. I established and run a charity that assists people to do just that. I could write for hours on the gratitude that I receive from success stories - it changes people's lives .Once their self esteem is restore the rest usually follows.
Well, I am now receiving small funding from government to augment the support from myself. Our outputs are well above the local average and we are receiving a fraction of the funding that the big outfits are getting.
Small and nimble delivers far better than big and bloated
Removing benefits is a drastic measure but it can be managed in a way that is fair to all stakeholders.
Why should somebody receive unemployment benefits if they refuse to attend interviews or take jobs that they are capable of doing but don't fancy doing ? Once we remove the fallacy that your NIC pays for hard times and it is in effect a straight tax, it'll ne a whole load easier to change the system
I spoke to somebody in London who was given my number for finnacial advice about leabing the big smoke and moving up north. He explained that the cost of housign is no longer affordable and his benefits are to be capped. After discussion it was a no brainer to move to Manchester , where his family lives. He said that his long term ambition is to be off benefits and stand on his own two feet. Clearly here the cap on benefits is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
The economic textbook will tell us that this will redistribute people from the south to the north , lower rents in the south and fill vacant properties up north. Somehow I am not so sure it will end up thus and we'll find out in 3 or 4 years exactly what problems it has created in place, but I do know that the private rental sector has been rubbing its hand with glee at the blank cheques handed out in housing benefits - it made a lot of people very very rich.
The first thing to crack is public perception . I think there may have been a substantial change on this as the problems are now getting a very public airing. Just as same sex "marriage" (there's an oxymoron if ever there was one) would have been unthinkable 30 or 40 years ago but is now on the table , so is the notion that welfare really should be a safety net and not taken for granted as a right of passage.
Next we have to work out a way that withdraws benefits without a shock to the system , both on a personal level to recipients and on a macro-economic level to the nation's spending power.
People need to wise up to the fact that if you are less well off you will go without some things. I went without holidays as a kid - we did day trips to the Cylde coast or Loch Lomond. the rest of the class went to Disneyland in the USA. I accepted it - I didn't throw my toys out the pram.
... the system should be provision of food/clothes/accomodation not cash for those with no income, and a sensible supplement for those with a shortfall in income, but rigourously scrutenised.
Nowadays (rightly so) you have to go through rigorous (but possibly still not stringent enough) means testing for a mortgage, why not for supplementary benefits? As Flying Scotsman says whilst you still pay for holidays, cigarettes and alcohol you have no need of any state top-up.
A civilised society should ensure no-one is homeless, unclad or starving, but I do not feel there is anymore duty than that.
I would draw the line at work-houses, but there should be some system of contributing time and effort in return for benefits.
Agree with child benefit comments, but the problem is the fact two people earning £45,000 each will get it but one earning £60,000 will not. The couple with 2 x £45000 will take home £65887.68, a single earner on £90000 will take home £58983.84 - that is nearly £7000 less! On top of this if they each have 3 children the two income family will get £2500 benefit so they will be nearly £10,000 better off than the sole earner family who will get none. I am not saying either should get child benefit, but if you are drawing lines in the sand they need to be fair! If the sole earner lives in London and the two earners in Macclesfield there is an even bigger divide!
Personally, I think child benefit should be scrapped for all and replaced with a sensible package of means tested benefits based on personal circumstances.
I agree with Old Greying that it is to be a provider of the last resort . Nearly all the things that were once luxuries are now generally commoditised and never been cheaper, at least not for the basic model. Even those on a safety net cannot grumble that a fridge or phone is not affordable. A TV ? I haven't got one and haven't felt I am lacking - in fact life is far better since I scrapped mine 20 years ago . Smart phone - nope , not got one of them either. And , yes, I do on occassion use the library or swap books with friends . Shock , horror ! Designer clothes - what are they ? Take a trip round your local "deprived area" and see the latest gear , gadgets and 48" tellies . How is it paid for ? Either benefits , undeclared earnings or illegal means . Time to stamp it out.
I've been blogging on my website www.formationsdirect.com for some time with my non-PC view of the world of economics,business and other stuff. If you like to read the views of somebody who doesn't "toe the party line" you've come to the right place. Government cock-ups, financial turmoil , business scandals and people's behaviour - I've got something to say about it , whether you like it or not.
www.siftmedia.co.uk - Interactive community publishing
Registered in England & Wales No. 05923499
Terms & conditions |
Privacy and cookies
That's politics for you 1 thanks
Do what is best for the party and the country comes second.
Labour is not alone, is it? Do you remember Maggie selling off all the council houses for a fraction of their value? That bought a few votes at the time.
What about the 5% tax cut for the higher paid and the reduction in CT for the larger companies? That will maybe buy a few votes, too :)
I don't have very much respect for politicians, but they are all alike.