Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
....since last week and what a mass of subjects!!
Nice to see the forum still so 'alive' and generating a wide range of topics. Some older threads with new posts are just 're-treads' though and are clearly just going around and around in circles and I gave up, looking at them weeks or even longer ago.
Should treads be 'locked' after a certain amount of time, say two months, to focus on new topics? Does anyone think that this will keep the forum more focused and vibrant?
Just a thought - not formed a view myself.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#2
I think there are many threads which will stand resurrection, so wouldn't want to lock them.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#3
# 1...although I never read your re-tread blogs I do not think it should be locked.
# 2..agree.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#4
Peter.
I agree with you, many threads are on-going and worth keeping up with as they progress or regress, whichever the case.
I have noticed that BarryW has not made one single comment on the "Under Occupancy" this thread has had a re-tread, as he put it and has been resurrected several times.
As he is so very much supportive of these types of cuts, it would be great to hear his views on the subject, so I have resurrected it again to give him a chance to respond to it?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#5
I think it would be pointless to lock a thread as surely it would only mean a new thread starting hopefully with a link to the old topic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#6
Gary,
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
GaryC wrote:Peter.
I agree with you, many threads are on-going and worth keeping up with as they progress or regress, whichever the case.
I have noticed that BarryW has not made one single comment on the "Under Occupancy" this thread has had a re-tread, as he put it and has been resurrected several times.
As he is so very much supportive of these types of cuts, it would be great to hear his views on the subject, so I have resurrected it again to give him a chance to respond to it?
GaryC - I have not read that thread. I do not read them all, time issues prevent that.
I am in favour of public spending cuts full stop - the only exception being Defence for reasons I have explained before. The burden of public spending is intolerable and not sustainable for a healthy competitive economy, that is fit for purpose. We need spending cuts and I will not be against any of the only too timid measures taken to date, other than Defence of course.
I am particularly in favour of cuts that reduce the benefits bill and removes the incentives that stop people working. If that is what you refer to then so be it.
This though, is not about specific issues, or spending cuts.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
i would respectfully suggest that you look through when you get time barry, the issue is a political hot potato and could very well cost your party any hope of being elected in 2015.
back to the thread title, some threads do look a bit jaded but new members might like to look back at the older ones and add a new idea.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
It is the economy, ultimately, that will determine the result of the election Howard.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#10
clearly you have not read the thread barry otherwise you would know the issue is not about incentivising work over benefits. the human stories that are evolving all the time due the ill thought out scheme are quite harrowing and hit the vulnerable without saving any money - ids has admitted to that.
you clearly think the election result is more important than people suffering, the nasty party never went very far away, not that i have much more confidence that the others actually care either.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#11
#9
-
Can you hear us, Mr Cameron?
"The PM must listen - and listen well - to what women want, or he will lose the next election, warns Judith Woods
247 Comments"
-
The Tories still need a living standards plan
"Telegraph View: The party must have a blueprint to take on Ed Miliband - not least on gas and electricity
40 Comments "
-
A pledge on rights
"Telegraph View: Sorting out human rights laws may mean leaving the European Convention
59 Comments "
It still seems the Tories have some way to go...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#12
Howard, why read a thread when you know you can not justify the end result of an ill thought out policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#13
BarryW.
To save you time trawling through old threads and as I know you are looking into this one.
How do you think cuts like the one below are going to help our economy recover or how these type of cuts will benefit us in any way?
Tony, Diann and their two daughters live in 3 bed house in Hull. Shanice is three years old. But their 15 year old daughter Stephanie is disabled.
She has 1p36 deletion syndrome, a genetic disorder that causes severe intellectual disability. So she has problems with mobility, speech and language. She has a mental age of a four or five year old.
At the moment, all three bedrooms are accounted for: One for mum and dad, one for Shanice and one for Stephanie.
15-year-old Stephanie requires 24 hour care from her parents. Credit: Family
From April, as social tenants, they will face a cut in their benefits to pay the government's so called 'bedroom tax'. Under new rules, the two girls will have to share a bedroom, because they're both under 16 and both of the same gender.
Therefore, the family will be deemed as having a spare bedroom.
So they have a choice: Take a 14% cut in benefits or downsize to a smaller place.
http://www.itv.com/news/2013-02-08/disabled-children-and-their-families-hit-by-governments-bedroom-tax/"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
GaryC - It is wrong, totally wrong to mention individual cases like that. As an individual such a person certainly deserves sympathy and help and the system should certainly recognise that. I think you should remove that post and photo for decency sake. Is that young lady capable of giving her permission?
Now to answer the point.
This does not get away from the fact that overall cuts must, repeat must be made for the sake of the economy. If you want a more sustainable level of help to people like her then we have to get the economy working properly and deal with those matters that impede that. To carry on with high deficit spending building up yet more debt is a route to disaster for a government as much as for individuals.
I have mentioned what these 'other matters' on top of deficit reduction are many times and these include:
Lower taxes particularly at the higher marginal rates working towards low, flat and simple taxes to maximise revenue to HMRC.
Supply side reforms to reduce the costs and risks of running businesses and employing people specially for small and medium sized businesses. This to help boost economic growth and with it job creation.
Lower levels of long term public spending, every £ of which is taken from the wealth generated by the private sector or borrowed (ultimately paid back by the private sector) This reduces the burden that is carried by taxpayers and holding back growth.
Lower levels of public sector debt, first eliminating deficit spending and getting back to protecting the value of money.
If you want to help people like this then these things are essential. The economy is broken because of the irresponsible behaviour of governments. Ultimately is is the less well off who suffer because of poor fiscal management. Right now they suffer because of too many years of bad management and the need now to put it right.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#15
A 15 year old would not have to give their permission her parents would and as this was highlighted by the media I doubt if the parents would worry about this forum.
I doubt anyone on here would dispute cuts had to be made but there is no need to go for an option that in the end could end up costing the same or more than it saves.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#16
BarryW.
Stephanie is not an individual case, she is a human being that is not alone, in being persecuted by these unjust cuts, that have absolutely nothing to do with your "risks of running a businesses" "sake of the economy" "deficit reduction" or "protecting the value of money"
You stated "If you want to help people like this then these things are essential"
What you are really stating, is that to help our disabled, we need to take some of their benefits off them now, give it to someone from the private sector who will use it wisely to help the economy recover, which in turn will help those suffering now, have a better life in the future?
Sounds great, but how do these genuine disabled people and their families survive now, until these risk taking heroes of yours turn the economy around?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#17
to sum up it appears that the sick and vulnerable should suffer for their own benefit as later on they will thank us for it.
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
#18
To sum it up, trot out the party line and speak lots and say nothing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#19
Barrie - I am certainly not trotting out any Party line, I have frequently attacked the coalition and Osborne in particular over being far too timid in cutting public spending and not bringing in the supply side changes needed.
Jan - whatever you say that post was totally improper and morally wrong. I am surprised at you for defending it.
GaryC - No - it is all about getting the economy back on its feet and fit for purpose.
If you need to blame anyone for the cuts then blame 13 years Labour of profligate and wasteful deficit spending during the phase of the economic cycle when deficit should have been closed and debt repaid. Plus of course, a culture of red tape, excessive taxation and an open door immigration policy being combined with a totally mad monetary policy that caused a housing bubble. Every time we are cursed by a period of Labour government they have screwed up the economy damaging the very people these hypocrites pretend to support.
To complain about the cuts would be like a cancer patient complaining about the painful and difficult treatment they have to receive in trying to save their life. Something I have close experience of.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#20
and another 10 years on top of that,the country is now dieing on its feet.
