Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
This morning we see the big divisions within the cobbled together govt on the moves to restrict benefit payments.
Ian Duncan Smith I believe is doing a good P.R. on the issue although it's still unclear if those that realy need protecting will be.
We then have cleggs acceptance of the govts strong line, this being against the lib dem peers who are clear they will vote against the govt plans.
This is all supposed to come in April 2013, goiung back and forward from the lords will take some time, and hopefully this will not all be rushed through.
Cleggy justified the govts views this morning which will further upset many in his party, but he is so far removed from his own party he's on borrowed time so it's to be expected, although you would have thought he would have been fighting back by now(or has he already given up the fight?)
Labour will also not be opposing the changes so it's likely these changes will go through, not because everyone agrees as there are lots of concerns, but because all 3 parties want to see fair changes, but are these proposals fair to all?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
There's nothing that's ever been devised, that's fair to all.
Roger
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
It will probably be like most things the weakest will be hit hardest.
Audere est facere.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought it was all coming in this april.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Osbornes cuts are creating a two speed Britain.New report reveals how cities reliant on Public sector employment are
falling behind their rivals.
Alexandra Jones chief executive of City Centres says all this when some cities are well placed to kick start economic
growth.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the government will press ahead with the cuts with some minor adjustments being made.
at the end of the day it is a vote winner.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The Reg - they need to attract the private sector into the cities. It is not healthy for any City or any part of the country to be reliant on state spending.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Very difficult to know which way to jump on this. There was a presentable immigrant woman on the lunchtime news with 2 kids who bemoaned the almost certain loss of her fairly comfortable life in a very nice part of London. She doesnt work, and probably has never worked, but feels the state should be providing her with this good life and was quite upset at the prospect of having it all disrupted. She has 2 kids and no husband.
The cap would not allow her to carry on living there. But is this bad? couldnt she move to somewhere less salubrious. When we all came to London without an ass in our trousers, we had to work our way up from lowly bedsits in Clapham. The lowly bedsits came with the low level of income. When you made more money you went higher up the ladder, twas slow but sure. But that was how the system worked.
Some people think you should start at the higher end, even if you have no ass in your trousers. The thing is..you have to earn a better pair of trousers. But therein of course lies the dilemna.
The government are faced with trying to incentivise a whole mass of people who dont work, dont want to work either, because they are better off than the sods hitting the traffic every morning..( of course there are others who want to work but cant get jobs..but thats another story)
While none of us want any kids to suffer, there has to be a line drawn in the sand at some point. The welfare bill is astronomical and growing ever more so.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i think the cap is quite fair, someone working would have to earn around £.36000 p.a. to have the same as the top rate of benefit.
reading various polls, most people think the cap should be £20,000.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Mmmm...... Not often agree with both Howard and PaulB on the same subject.
#8 says it all for me, I think. Blimey, does that mean all four of us agree. Pass me an icepack for my head immediately!
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Hold my ice pack until Keith and Reg come down off the fence.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
More families set to lose their homes as squeeze bites deeper...............
Repossessions forecast to rise by 22% to 45,000 this tear as inflation and unemployment take its toll.
This is not a case of families having mortgages above their means ..............their means have been taken away.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
PETER;
You will never find me sitting on the fence(nor voting for your party) lol
I have always said on here benefits needs sorting and i have also said on here that i d smith has done a lot of good work.
yep, iv always said those that are able to work, should.
and those abusing the system only make it worse for the genuine geezers in society, and so any moves to sort the system out the sooner the better.
What wse have to be clear on I D Smith says we (they)have a year to iron out any outstanding issues, and those with complex issues and issues they will be sorted,
and those in genuine need have nothing to fear?
So, no peter, i'm not sitting on the fence, but i do hope that I D Smith's words this morning will ring true.
sadly can you trust a politician's words
it's to late whe it all gets changed
and sadly in the past all political parties have fallen short on the trust front
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i don't think this will lead to mass homelessness as some say.
dave is on a winner here and if there were mass evictions then public sentiment would change dramatically.
if people are renting then they will simply move to a cheaper area, more complicated for people with mortrgages.
i have now seen the interview with the lady that paulb referred to and was taken aback by her breathtaking arrogance in thinking we should keep her in the manner she was accustomed to.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
A few facts - first of all people on disability benefits are not subject to the cap.
Additionally the system is also changing to make it worthwhile for someone to work while on benefits. Those to whom the benefit cap applies can therefore increase their income by finding work. Their future is in their own hands and maybe a few more Brits will take the jobs that have been otherwise going to immigrants.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Cultural Marxism is vile isn't it?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
well i thought part of this scheme was to look at those on dla that maybe shouldn't be getting it?
another u turn???
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No Keith - that is happening too and its a different issue. That is a matter of weeding out those who are not really entitled to benefits from those that are, funnily enough where that scheme has been trialled something like 50% stopped taking benefits resulting in the obvious conclusion that they are working 'on the black' and preferred to lose disability benefit than their 'black' income.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
The Lords vote..................have it right..........for ordinary families and joe public.
All forms of benefit idiosyncrasies need to be ironed out......it most not turn into social cleansing
