howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
its throat?
Howard that has to be one of the funniest comments I have read on the forum
Indeed!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
one of the funniest things i can remember was on a spanish package tour in the 70's and we were stuck on a coach with this irritating tour guide that loved the sound of her own voice.
as she started to get hoarse she exclaimed that she needed something for her throat, quick as a flash a wag replied " i have a razor blade if that is any use".
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith Bibby.
The most unhealthy aspect of public spending is the benefit state. Benefits are too high and far too many people get them. I would return to a benefit system where they formed a short-term safety net only and nobody could possibly make a career out of milking them. I would do away with tax credits completely, over a period to wean people off them. I would freeze benefits for a year then have increases at half-RPI subject to a max of 3% on an ongoing basis until they are at lest 25% in real terms lower than now.
The only State benefits this would not affect are State Pensions and long-term incapacity to existing claimants.
I would have a new insurance based income protection instead of state incapacity for new claimants with protection for the unisurable, as I would for health - the NHS would go as it is not an efficient way to deliver it. The principal of free healthcare would not change however, only the funding method which would be modelled on the German system.
I would go to town on a whole range of quangoes - the Equalities Commission would be immediately done away with for one thing. Chop masses of red tape that affect businesses and they also add to pubic spending costs too.
In fact there is one thing and one thing only I would not cut - Defence, it is the most important role of government and the most important public spending.
The ill-considered concept of the Welfare State itself would end.
That's enough for now. As you can see I have thought about this kind of thing!!!
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw
as i have said many times before we are close on the benefits system
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barry,not when it efects the kids education,reports are coming in from the front line [schools] that kids are going to school dirty and hungry and will be losing out on jobs at a later date.they are forcasting that the kids would end up on benifits because of it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Kids going to school dirty and hungry - nothing new there then and it is a disgrace and entirely down to the parents and nothing whatsoever to do with government.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barry your right about the parents,but blaming the goverment for it,because the cut backs on benifits and pay frezzes.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No excuses Brian - parental responsibility full stop.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barry,nothing much can do if they havent got the cash to feed and clothe them,working or not.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
It is parental responsibility still Brian - what is more it also comes down to priorities.
Do they smoke or drink?
Do they buy designer trainers?
Do they have smartphones?
Do they have a Sky package?
None of those are essential but we see the kind of people you refer to doing all of this on benefits. Their kids should come first.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
so if these people spend all their money on the things you mention barry, do you propose that the children suffer because of it?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
It is up to the parents, no-one else. Their poor parenting must not be passed on as a responsibility to everyone else. We are too soft in this country and that allows people to shuffle off their responsibilities.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
So, Barry, your Government is to propose a 'poverty' get out clause to apply to all contracts?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
What on earth are you talking about Tom?
The point is we must get away from shuffling off responsibility to other people, stop expecting others from picking up the bill for our own lack of responsibility. Time people were expected to answer for their own decisions, reap the rewards for good ones and pay the price for bad ones. That is the real world and is far healthier than the sorry mess our society has got itself into.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Here was me thinking your party might wish to back you up Barry, in your call for the ending of the poor's 'enjoyment' of Sky etc., but it seems while you do wish them not to have access to Sky etc. you insist they carry on paying for the service as they are contracted to.
Surely it is no more than a joined-up Government should do. To boast of Britain's broadband internet coverage while stating that the service is only for those with the disposable income to enjoy it.
Just who is paying the price for who's bad decisions with your austerity programme?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 32.Too many assumptions in order to give a right wing standard answer.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
it appears that if children have feckless parents we should just leave them to it and just hope that they do not grow up the same.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You are happy for people to live their lives on benefits, smoking and drinking, spending of luxuries at our expense sitting on their fat backsides.