• The post you are reporting:
   
  This is all very predictable and does not stand up to close examination.
  
  There are many ways that these cuts are good for the poor, particularly looked at as part of the overall package of proposals.
  
  Firstly the shift from hand-outs to hand-ups.
  It is not fair or right that some people can live their lives untroubled by any idea of contributing to society and merely just taking. We had that example of the tart and her 5 kids from 4 dads living the life of Reilly with more electronic kit than I could ever afford for my kids and even a boob job paid for by us taxpayers. If these cuts force her to stop leeching off the rest of us and get some work then that is good for her and good for us.
  
  The whole shift in benefit reform is to make it pay for people to get back into work.
  
  What about apprenticships? John Hayes got through 75,000 extra funded apprentices every year. Real help to youngsters to get the skills they will need to earn a living.
  
  What about the plans to give people a chance to get social housing tenants a ten percent equity in their own homes. That can be a deposit to buy their first home. What is appalling is that tenants in social housing are not allowed to run a business from their home, that will change under this government.
  
  What about education. Experience in Sweden shows that free schools help the poorer areas most. Then there is the poor pupils premium.
  
  The fact is if you take the government's polices as a whole, rather than to just look at selected parts of it you get a much broader, better and more balanced picture.
  
  The IFS report was incomplete and inadequate. You get more headlines if you attack.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason