TUC Spending Cuts March

[Betty Boop]

The march has set off in London against the cuts. There looks to be decent numbers out on the streets, hats off to them all, and I hope it passes off peacefully.

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

Mostly peacefully but the usual hanger on ar$eholes smashing up anything they want. Folk like that deserve a good kickin by the polis.

[Sylar]

I sincerely hope those who condemned the students for their behaviour won't display double standards, and lambaste them for their violent behaviour and outrageous scenes in London yesterday evening.

[Woody1985]

I think that in some instances police are in the right to give people a slap.

[Beefster]

Don't know why the media keeps describing the rioters as 'anarchists'. No self-respecting anarchist would ever demonstrate against the state becoming smaller.

[ancient hibee]

are anarchists allowed to respect anything?

[heretoday]

Nothing could be more effective than a crowd of thousands standing in complete silence outside the Houses of Parliament.

No violence, no chucking stuff at the police.

I suppose there are some people who actually agree with what this coalition are doing and we don't want to offend them.

[CropleyWasGod]

I spent the day being a tourist in London, part of which was educating the boy in the cultural spectacle of the march.

Best part for me was a splinter group which detached itself from the main march, chanting "We're from Scotland, we're from Scotland, we hate Tories more than you."

[steakbake]

The usual suspects hijack a legitimate protest and it all goes wrong: not fair on those who went to state their opinion peacefully.

IMHO, i think the cuts are generally justified. There are a lot of people on the left who are delusional about the economic situation and seem to think it's some kind of conspiracy just to make us all miserable. I dont know what part of 'there's no money left' (labour treasury minister liam byrne) is so difficult to understand. I imagine much of it is just an instinctual, contrarian dislike of the tories as much as anything else. Cameron and co will be proved right on this (unfortunately).

[Pete]

The usual suspects hijack a legitimate protest and it all goes wrong: not fair on those who went to state their opinion peacefully.

IMHO, i think the cuts are generally justified. There are a lot of people on the left who are delusional about the economic situation and seem to think it's some kind of conspiracy just to make us all miserable. I dont know what part of 'there's no money left' (labour treasury minister liam byrne) is so difficult to understand. I imagine much of it is just an instinctual, contrarian dislike of the tories as much as anything else. Cameron and co will be proved right on this (unfortunately).

That was simply an "in-joke" made between politicians that was made public when it shouldn't have been.

I simply don't agree that these cuts and the forthcoming ones are justified and that there is simply no alternative. If Labour had got in then there would be no increase in the tax allowance which this government are having to subsidise due to the lib dem demands. There would also have been an increase in NI contributions.
There would still have been cuts but they wouldn't have been as severe...and there wouldn't have been this ideological decimating of public service jobs that seems to fit the tory ideal.

At least we still have the private sector to soak up all these poor sods who can't find work and the "big society" to police the streets when police budgets are being cut and officers are being taken off the street.

[bighairyfaeleith]

That was simply an "in-joke" made between politicians that was made public when it shouldn't have been.

I simply don't agree that these cuts and the forthcoming ones are justified and that there is simply no alternative. If Labour had got in then there would be no increase in the tax allowance which this government are having to subsidise due to the lib dem demands. There would also have been an increase in NI contributions.
There would still have been cuts but they wouldn't have been as severe...and there wouldn't have been this ideological decimating of public service jobs that seems to fit the tory ideal.

At least we still have the private sector to soak up all these poor sods who can't find work and the "big society" to police the streets when police budgets are being cut and officers are being taken off the street.

How very very dare you:rules:

The tories wouldn't lie to suit there own agenda, how dare you criticise the cuts, you must just be thick if you don't understand!!!!

[khib70]

The usual suspects hijack a legitimate protest and it all goes wrong: not fair on those who went to state their opinion peacefully.

IMHO, i think the cuts are generally justified. There are a lot of people on the left who are delusional about the economic situation and seem to think it's some kind of conspiracy just to make us all miserable. I dont know what part of 'there's no money left' (labour treasury minister liam byrne) is so difficult to understand. I imagine much of it is just an instinctual, contrarian dislike of the tories as much as anything else. Cameron and co will be proved right on this (unfortunately).
:agree: Spot on there.

"March for the Alternative"? Which is? Er...we don't actually have one at the moment. But when we do it will probaly involve a bloated and overfunded public sector, higher taxes, and bigger salaries/more power for fat trade union leaders who represent a minority of the workforce. What do you mean, that's what got us in this situation in the first place?

[Beefster]

Anyone who suggests that there is no alternative to the draconian cuts implemented by the Thatcherites and their Lib Dem stooges are just being disingenuous. Labour have already supported £2bn of cuts and only opposed £54bn. To those who say that they don't offer an alternative - get your facts right!!!!!

There is another way - we could continue to spend more on debt interest than on educating our children and caring for the elderly combined. Simples.

[easty]

Anyone who suggests that there is no alternative to the draconian cuts implemented by the Thatcherites and their Lib Dem stooges are just being disingenuous. Labour have already supported £2bn of cuts and only opposed £54bn. To those who say that they don't offer an alternative - get your facts right!!!!!

There is another way - we could continue to spend more on debt interest than on educating our children and caring for the elderly combined. Simples.

:agree: I'm getting bored with all this "if you don't support the cuts then you're a denialist" crap.

Another thing that's really grinding my gears is the attitude that if you're against the cuts then it's just because you're some Labour super fan, who prays each night at their in-home shrine of Gordon Brown before jumping under a Neil Kinnock duvet cover to have a nice sleep dreaming about the times before Osbourne was chancellor.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Anyone who suggests that there is no alternative to the draconian cuts implemented by the Thatcherites and their Lib Dem stooges are just being disingenuous. Labour have already supported £2bn of cuts and only opposed £54bn. To those who say that they don't offer an alternative - get your facts right!!!!!

There is another way - we could continue to spend more on debt interest than on educating our children and caring for the elderly combined. Simples.

Almost bang on beefy, the bottom line is that the vast majority of the country recognise the needs for cuts, all major political parties included.

However the real argument is about what to cut, how much to cut and when to cut.

The constant moving of the argument to saying people don't want any cuts and are not living in the real world is just a smokescreen by the tories to hide what they are really doing!

What we are talking about is cracking the budget deficit in five(may be four can't recall?) years or seven.

The tories want five because it means they can implement far tougher policies that means the country will look the way they ideologically want it to look, they are blindly hoping that there changes to things like the NHS, the police etc will work and that the private sector will save the day on the unemployment and growth front.

I just don't buy it, but maybe I will be wrong.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I just want to know when there will be a UN declaration allowing us to be bombed. Surely if a couple of thousand Libyans demonstarting against the state deserves one then quarter of a million in UK do.

[truehibernian]

Anyone who suggests that there is no alternative to the draconian cuts implemented by the Thatcherites and their Lib Dem stooges are just being disingenuous. Labour have already supported £2bn of cuts and only opposed £54bn. To those who say that they don't offer an alternative - get your facts right!!!!!

There is another way - we could continue to spend more on debt interest than on educating our children and caring for the elderly combined. Simples.

I look at it a different way beefster and non politically.

Let's face it.....we all got a wee bit greedy, all over extended ourselves, and in a way, are paying for our greed. When the offer of a credit card was there, I took it. When the credit limit was such and such, I used it. As my mortgages grew and I was offered x amount of my salary as opposed to a smaller amount previously......again I took it. My finances are taking a hit, but I cannot really complain because I brought a lot of it on myself with bad financial decisions (now with hindsight :greengrin)

It's a travesty that we have so little in the pot to spend on schools, hospitals and infrastructure, and of course there is always the case that there has been some terrible decision making politically (locally and nationally) and fat cats in both sectors coining it in at our expense (including said poiticians). And no amount of arguments, green or otherwise, for me will justify the white elephant that will be the tram project or building a vastly inflated parliament building when another established building could have been just as efficient and viable.

But I want my kids to have the best start in adult life as they can, and hopefully not paying half their pay in tax, only getting a certain percentage mortgage and having to find huge lump sums to put down on a first home, and also have my future grandchildren having a decent school to go to with the chance of Uni which is funded. If that means me paying a wee bit extra where I can afford it, I will if told/asked. If it means me paying more into my pension and working longer, then god willing and health permitting, I will do so. It's just the way I was brought up really, but of course everyone is different and will have way different views. I am of course very lucky to still have a job and will try to keep my head down to keep it.

It's our generation's mistakes and we all IMHO have had an element of responsibilty towards it. That isn't political in my book.......it's life. I have been through two recessions through different governments and different parties in power. It's cyclical. One thing is for sure though......all of us can no longer live on the never never and all of us have to work hard to put things right again. And that includes those that can work, won't work, and expect to live on benefits all their days.........getting a lazy nation working is key. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. There are jobs out there that could be filled, but people just don't want to work to earn their keep. That's society's problem and all parties have caused us to become this way. For the unemployed who are hunting high and low for a job I am heart sorry for.......it must be terrible. But for those that sit and do diddly squat, get their homes and lifestyles funded by the tax payer, yet still expect the best service from the public sector..........makes my blood boil have to say ! We are a nation gone soft IMHO. A lot of people are now in the entrenched habit of having everything done for them and the state paying for it. That has to stop IMHO.

Oh and I am a Labour supporter all my days so there are my red colours nailed to the mast :agree: It's nippy as anything however supporting some of what the Tories are planning........maybe I need psychiatric assessment :greengrin

[IWasThere2016]

Almost bang on beefy, the bottom line is that the vast majority of the country recognise the needs for cuts, all major political parties included.

However the real argument is about what to cut, how much to cut and when to cut.

The constant moving of the argument to saying people don't want any cuts and are not living in the real world is just a smokescreen by the tories to hide what they are really doing!

What we are talking about is cracking the budget deficit in five(may be four can't recall?) years or seven.

The tories want five because it means they can implement far tougher policies that means the country will look the way they ideologically want it to look, they are blindly hoping that there changes to things like the NHS, the police etc will work and that the private sector will save the day on the unemployment and growth front.

I just don't buy it, but maybe I will be wrong.

The Government plan to rectify the structural deficit by 2015. The OECD have described this as 'ambitious but necessary' (previously IIRC it was 'significant but necessary'). The key is necessary. I am sure - as with most things - we'd all do it differently .. but denying the need for the cuts and change is Jambo-esque fiscal (mis)management :agree:

[Betty Boop]

I look at it a different way beefster and non politically.

Let's face it.....we all got a wee bit greedy, all over extended ourselves, and in a way, are paying for our greed. When the offer of a credit card was there, I took it. When the credit limit was such and such, I used it. As my mortgages grew and I was offered x amount of my salary as opposed to a smaller amount previously......again I took it. My finances are taking a hit, but I cannot really complain because I brought a lot of it on myself with bad financial decisions (now with hindsight :greengrin)

It's a travesty that we have so little in the pot to spend on schools, hospitals and infrastructure, and of course there is always the case that there has been some terrible decision making politically (locally and nationally) and fat cats in both sectors coining it in at our expense (including said poiticians). And no amount of arguments, green or otherwise, for me will justify the white elephant that will be the tram project or building a vastly inflated parliament building when another established building could have been just as efficient and viable.

But I want my kids to have the best start in adult life as they can, and hopefully not paying half their pay in tax, only getting a certain percentage mortgage and having to find huge lump sums to put down on a first home, and also have my future grandchildren having a decent school to go to with the chance of Uni which is funded. If that means me paying a wee bit extra where I can afford it, I will if told/asked. If it means me paying more into my pension and working longer, then god willing and health permitting, I will do so. It's just the way I was brought up really, but of course everyone is different and will have way different views. I am of course very lucky to still have a job and will try to keep my head down to keep it.

It's our generation's mistakes and we all IMHO have had an element of responsibilty towards it. That isn't political in my book.......it's life. I have been through two recessions through different governments and different parties in power. It's cyclical. One thing is for sure though......all of us can no longer live on the never never and all of us have to work hard to put things right again. And that includes those that can work, won't work, and expect to live on benefits all their days.........getting a lazy nation working is key. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. There are jobs out there that could be filled, but people just don't want to work to earn their keep. That's society's problem and all parties have caused us to become this way. For the unemployed who are hunting high and low for a job I am heart sorry for.......it must be terrible. But for those that sit and do diddly squat, get their homes and lifestyles funded by the tax payer, yet still expect the best service from the public sector..........makes my blood boil have to say ! We are a nation gone soft IMHO. A lot of people are now in the entrenched habit of having everything done for them and the state paying for it. That has to stop IMHO.

Oh and I am a Labour supporter all my days so there are my red colours nailed to the mast :agree: It's nippy as anything however supporting some of what the Tories are planning........maybe I need psychiatric assessment :greengrin

Speak for your self ! :greengrin

[steakbake]

We are a nation gone soft IMHO. A lot of people are now in the entrenched habit of having everything done for them and the state paying for it. That has to stop IMHO.

I agree with this. The idea of universal benefits were just an example of the kind of money that has been wasted and got us to this position. A lot of people look to the state to provide, as if it is a divine right. Also on a personal level - I have lived in an illusion of being relatively well off. Cheap credit thrown at you by the banks while the good times were going is now having to be paid off and it's a high price to pay and makes every day a struggle.

So I would describe my position as a reformed spending addict! I don't see anything wrong in a smaller state and spending on what we can realistically afford. I can see the general point of what is going on. I don't agree with everything and some of the things they have said they will not drop: like a replacement Trident for example, are ridiculous. But then no-one in the Westminster consensus is suggesting otherwise so whoever we have in, we'll be wasting money on that pretence.

The UK doesn't manufacture much at all and has an inflated public sector. It makes sense to live with a bit of pain for 4-5 years (one of which is almost finished) and to rebalance the economy a bit for future generations.

We just have to suck it up.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I agree with this. The idea of universal benefits were just an example of the kind of money that has been wasted and got us to this position. A lot of people look to the state to provide, as if it is a divine right. Also on a personal level - I have lived in an illusion of being relatively well off. Cheap credit thrown at you by the banks while the good times were going is now having to be paid off and it's a high price to pay and makes every day a struggle.

So I would describe my position as a reformed spending addict! I don't see anything wrong in a smaller state and spending on what we can realistically afford. I can see the general point of what is going on. I don't agree with everything and some of the things they have said they will not drop: like a replacement Trident for example, are ridiculous. But then no-one in the Westminster consensus is suggesting otherwise so whoever we have in, we'll be wasting money on that pretence.

The UK doesn't manufacture much at all and has an inflated public sector. It makes sense to live with a bit of pain for 4-5 years (one of which is almost finished) and to rebalance the economy a bit for future generations.

We just have to suck it up.

See in most ways I agree, we do need to cut, we do need to sort this out, however I don't agree that we have to just accept what is proposed.

Remember none of the parties told us what they would cut before the election, none of them where honest with us, so now we should just let them do what they want?

No, if a change is being done for the wrong reasons then I will say I'm not happy with it, prime example being the re-structuring of the NHS, I genuinely believe this will be a disaster and I cannot believe such a huge change to the NHS, which by and large works very well, is happening without the people getting a real say on it.

[Mibbes Aye]

Don't know why the media keeps describing the rioters as 'anarchists'. No self-respecting anarchist would ever demonstrate against the state becoming smaller.

:greengrin

Wasn't it one of Cameron's key advisers, Nick Boles, who said they wanted to introduce 'chaos' in public services?

Maybe there is a link after all.........

[Mibbes Aye]

Anyone who suggests that there is no alternative to the draconian cuts implemented by the Thatcherites and their Lib Dem stooges are just being disingenuous. Labour have already supported £2bn of cuts and only opposed £54bn. To those who say that they don't offer an alternative - get your facts right!!!!!

There is another way - we could continue to spend more on debt interest than on educating our children and caring for the elderly combined. Simples.

I admire the fact you seem to be against that.

Given that under Osborne, our debt level is increasing, I assume you will be in favour of him resigning? :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

The Government plan to rectify the structural deficit by 2015. The OECD have described this as 'ambitious but necessary' (previously IIRC it was 'significant but necessary'). The key is necessary. I am sure - as with most things - we'd all do it differently .. but denying the need for the cuts and change is Jambo-esque fiscal (mis)management :agree:

The OECD said the global recession wouldn't have a significant consequent impact on the UK.

The OECD said that inflation would remain low.

They were pretty much spectacularly wrong. At the same time they have got a number of things right, as you would expect given the expertise at their disposal.

The critical thing is they're not bulletproof. They get it wrong. And they have an agenda based on a perspective that doesn't challenge market economic principles.

There's nothing wrong with that per se, but worth bearing in mind they're not as objective as one might think.

[Mibbes Aye]

The Government plan to rectify the structural deficit by 2015. The OECD have described this as 'ambitious but necessary' (previously IIRC it was 'significant but necessary'). The key is necessary. I am sure - as with most things - we'd all do it differently .. but denying the need for the cuts and change is Jambo-esque fiscal (mis)management :agree:

After the election the Government created the Office of Budget Responsibility.

They stated publicly that the Labour Budget of 2010, if implemented, would remove the bulk of the deficit by 2015.

It's worth bearing in mind given that so many people seem to have swallowed Cameron and Osborne's version of events, hook, line and sinker.

[Mibbes Aye]

I agree with this. The idea of universal benefits were just an example of the kind of money that has been wasted and got us to this position. A lot of people look to the state to provide, as if it is a divine right. Also on a personal level - I have lived in an illusion of being relatively well off. Cheap credit thrown at you by the banks while the good times were going is now having to be paid off and it's a high price to pay and makes every day a struggle.

So I would describe my position as a reformed spending addict! I don't see anything wrong in a smaller state and spending on what we can realistically afford. I can see the general point of what is going on. I don't agree with everything and some of the things they have said they will not drop: like a replacement Trident for example, are ridiculous. But then no-one in the Westminster consensus is suggesting otherwise so whoever we have in, we'll be wasting money on that pretence.

The UK doesn't manufacture much at all and has an inflated public sector. It makes sense to live with a bit of pain for 4-5 years (one of which is almost finished) and to rebalance the economy a bit for future generations.

We just have to suck it up.

Have to confess that I see that as yet another of the Tory myths in many respects.

The proportion of public sector jobs in the labour market stayed the same from when Labour came into power through to the recession kicking in.

Yes, many new nurses, police and teachers were recruited but the private sector grew in greater numbers.

Regarding universal benefits being a waste, would you view the NHS (or the principle of it, at least) as a waste of money - it's the daddy of universal benefits?

[steakbake]

Have to confess that I see that as yet another of the Tory myths in many respects.

The proportion of public sector jobs in the labour market stayed the same from when Labour came into power through to the recession kicking in.

Yes, many new nurses, police and teachers were recruited but the private sector grew in greater numbers.

Regarding universal benefits being a waste, would you view the NHS (or the principle of it, at least) as a waste of money - it's the daddy of universal benefits?

I think child benefit would be one I think of in this category. Perhaps my terminology is off - but that's the kind of waste I mean. Very nice to dish out money to everyone regardless of need, but in the end, totally pointless.

The NHS is a service and I don't see it as a universal benefit in the way I mean it. I would like to see it protected but it cannot be exempt from reform. Neither can education, police, the military etc.

[ballengeich]

After the election the Government created the Office of Budget Responsibility.

They stated publicly that the Labour Budget of 2010, if implemented, would remove the bulk of the deficit by 2015.

It's worth bearing in mind given that so many people seem to have swallowed Cameron and Osborne's version of events, hook, line and sinker.

The Labour party's plans aren't in reality that different from those of the Tories. If the Tories' plans work then we'll be paying over £65 billion per year in interest on government debt by the next election. That's over £1000 per year for every person in the country just on interest. This amount will remain the same for ever more unless we start repaying some of the debt. Under Labour the amount would be up over £70 billion per year and still rising. I know which I'd prefer unless someone can give me some specific benefits from paying the extra. The deficit is fine if you're a banker - not so great for the rest of us.

The Labour government came into power saying that they would not use a deficit to fund current expenditure. Unfortunately they started abandoning this in their second term. Had they kept to their principles the short-term future would be less unpleasant.

One of the things which has made matters worse and I don't think any party looked at sufficiently seriously before the election is the rise in world oil, food and other raw material costs. The UK's balance of payments had been adversely affected by the financial crisis as for years we'd been using bank and other financial companies' wealth to pay for the import of physical goods. Recent price rises have made our trading position less favourable. While the budget deficit needs immediate treatment, I expect the balance of payments deficit to become a growing problem in the next few years.

The last election was a bad one for the winners to succeed in.

[ballengeich]

No, if a change is being done for the wrong reasons then I will say I'm not happy with it, prime example being the re-structuring of the NHS, I genuinely believe this will be a disaster and I cannot believe such a huge change to the NHS, which by and large works very well, is happening without the people getting a real say on it.

Can I point out that the restructuring is in England only. The structure of the NHS in Scotland will be decided in Holyrood after the May election.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think child benefit would be one I think of in this category. Perhaps my terminology is off - but that's the kind of waste I mean. Very nice to dish out money to everyone regardless of need, but in the end, totally pointless.

The NHS is a service and I don't see it as a universal benefit in the way I mean it. I would like to see it protected but it cannot be exempt from reform. Neither can education, police, the military etc.

Absolutely agree on reform being critical.

I also agree that there's something incongruent in the idea of universal benefits, where people who are on reasonable or better incomes receive money.

I think there's a truth that's not acknowledged enough by any of the parties however - the idea of universal benefits is very straightforward.

By making benefits universal, people on what we would (or certainly used to) describe as middle class incomes are far less likely to protest at their taxes being used to help poorer people, because they get something out of it. And people on these higher incomes are a critical grouping within the electorate.

Nobody really put up much of a fuss about child benefit until very recently. Likewise, no one really challenges the principle of universality in the NHS - because everyone benefits.

Take something like housing benefit or unemployment benefit however, and you can't move for people who don't receive it, up in arms at how their tax money is being used.

Universal benefits protect those benefits for the more vulnerable, by ensuring that those who have the power to seek their removal have an incentive not to. Or at least that was the case when these benefits were introduced. It's maybe interesting to ponder whether social changes have had an impact on that premise. On the basis that human nature doesn't change so easily, I'm guessing not :greengrin

[truehibernian]

Absolutely agree on reform being critical.

I also agree that there's something incongruent in the idea of universal benefits, where people who are on reasonable or better incomes receive money.

I think there's a truth that's not acknowledged enough by any of the parties however - the idea of universal benefits is very straightforward.

By making benefits universal, people on what we would (or certainly used to) describe as middle class incomes are far less likely to protest at their taxes being used to help poorer people, because they get something out of it. And people on these higher incomes are a critical grouping within the electorate.

Nobody really put up much of a fuss about child benefit until very recently. Likewise, no one really challenges the principle of universality in the NHS - because everyone benefits.

Take something like housing benefit or unemployment benefit however, and you can't move for people who don't receive it, up in arms at how their tax money is being used.

Universal benefits protect those benefits for the more vulnerable, by ensuring that those who have the power to seek their removal have an incentive not to. Or at least that was the case when these benefits were introduced. It's maybe interesting to ponder whether social changes have had an impact on that premise. On the basis that human nature doesn't change so easily, I'm guessing not :greengrin

Very good post.

I do though see myself in that bracket of being up in arms when I see countless people who look like they can walk, talk, manage to go to the chemist no bother to get their prescription, manage to buy their cider and fags, and manage to sit and sunbathe in their council home (or two knocked together to house whole family) whilst we work to pay for that lifestyle.

It is as you say social changes and society in general that needs to change and adapt it's mindset. We have a sizeable chunk of the population now so used to getting benefit, or indeed fleecing the system, that it is I suppose understandable that they would not want to seek work or employment.

I have often argued that if you are able to work, but in receipt of benefits, you should have to make a community contribution to effectively "earn" that benefit. It could of course be linked to the minumum wage etc........surely even a few hours a week doing something worthwhile locally or to benefit those you live amongst, is an idea and concept we should be encouraging. I know the Tories have this "Big Society" notion but it is so far from being accepted it's untrue. People need a push and the threat of losing something before they act.......again, just my opinion and others disagree.

[RyeSloan]

Have to confess that I see that as yet another of the Tory myths in many respects.

The proportion of public sector jobs in the labour market stayed the same from when Labour came into power through to the recession kicking in.
Yes, many new nurses, police and teachers were recruited but the private sector grew in greater numbers.

Regarding universal benefits being a waste, would you view the NHS (or the principle of it, at least) as a waste of money - it's the daddy of universal benefits?

Interestingly the proportion may well have stayed similar but the increase in overall employed means the actual number increased substantially...substantially means 254,200 between 2003 and 2008.

The NHS is not a waste of money and the idea of a universal health service is an excellent one however the NHS certainly knows how to waste money that's for sure!!

[steakbake]

Hmm. I just don't know then!

[(((Fergus)))]

I look at it a different way beefster and non politically.

Let's face it.....we all got a wee bit greedy, all over extended ourselves, and in a way, are paying for our greed. When the offer of a credit card was there, I took it. When the credit limit was such and such, I used it. As my mortgages grew and I was offered x amount of my salary as opposed to a smaller amount previously......again I took it. My finances are taking a hit, but I cannot really complain because I brought a lot of it on myself with bad financial decisions (now with hindsight :greengrin)

It's a travesty that we have so little in the pot to spend on schools, hospitals and infrastructure, and of course there is always the case that there has been some terrible decision making politically (locally and nationally) and fat cats in both sectors coining it in at our expense (including said poiticians). And no amount of arguments, green or otherwise, for me will justify the white elephant that will be the tram project or building a vastly inflated parliament building when another established building could have been just as efficient and viable.

But I want my kids to have the best start in adult life as they can, and hopefully not paying half their pay in tax, only getting a certain percentage mortgage and having to find huge lump sums to put down on a first home, and also have my future grandchildren having a decent school to go to with the chance of Uni which is funded. If that means me paying a wee bit extra where I can afford it, I will if told/asked. If it means me paying more into my pension and working longer, then god willing and health permitting, I will do so. It's just the way I was brought up really, but of course everyone is different and will have way different views. I am of course very lucky to still have a job and will try to keep my head down to keep it.

It's our generation's mistakes and we all IMHO have had an element of responsibilty towards it. That isn't political in my book.......it's life. I have been through two recessions through different governments and different parties in power. It's cyclical. One thing is for sure though......all of us can no longer live on the never never and all of us have to work hard to put things right again. And that includes those that can work, won't work, and expect to live on benefits all their days.........getting a lazy nation working is key. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. There are jobs out there that could be filled, but people just don't want to work to earn their keep. That's society's problem and all parties have caused us to become this way. For the unemployed who are hunting high and low for a job I am heart sorry for.......it must be terrible. But for those that sit and do diddly squat, get their homes and lifestyles funded by the tax payer, yet still expect the best service from the public sector..........makes my blood boil have to say ! We are a nation gone soft IMHO. A lot of people are now in the entrenched habit of having everything done for them and the state paying for it. That has to stop IMHO.

Oh and I am a Labour supporter all my days so there are my red colours nailed to the mast :agree: It's nippy as anything however supporting some of what the Tories are planning........maybe I need psychiatric assessment :greengrin

Well said.

[Big Ed]

Very good post.

I do though see myself in that bracket of being up in arms when I see countless people who look like they can walk, talk, manage to go to the chemist no bother to get their prescription, manage to buy their cider and fags, and manage to sit and sunbathe in their council home (or two knocked together to house whole family) whilst we work to pay for that lifestyle.

It is as you say social changes and society in general that needs to change and adapt it's mindset. We have a sizeable chunk of the population now so used to getting benefit, or indeed fleecing the system, that it is I suppose understandable that they would not want to seek work or employment.

I have often argued that if you are able to work, but in receipt of benefits, you should have to make a community contribution to effectively "earn" that benefit. It could of course be linked to the minumum wage etc........surely even a few hours a week doing something worthwhile locally or to benefit those you live amongst, is an idea and concept we should be encouraging. I know the Tories have this "Big Society" notion but it is so far from being accepted it's untrue. People need a push and the threat of losing something before they act.......again, just my opinion and others disagree.

IMO getting people who screw the benefit system back to work is as likely as getting all the owed tax revenue off mega-rich avoiders: not very.
Both have a vested interest in their status quo and will go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that their respective sources of revenue are preserved.
Another thing that occurs to me is that now that the Public Sector is set for downsizing; where are the vacancies for the work-shy?
With unemployment rising; which employer would consider taking on someone who has spent a lifetime on benefits, bringing recalcitrance to the workplace?

[truehibernian]

IMO getting people who screw the benefit system back to work is as likely as getting all the owed tax revenue off mega-rich avoiders: not very.
Both have a vested interest in their status quo and will go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that their respective sources of revenue are preserved.
Another thing that occurs to me is that now that the Public Sector is set for downsizing; where are the vacancies for the work-shy?
With unemployment rising; which employer would consider taking on someone who has spent a lifetime on benefits, bringing recalcitrance to the workplace?

Again, good post ed and hard to disagree with the points you raise......it's a chicken and egg scenario we now find ourselves in.

I think though we may have to get away from the very words "employed" and "unemployed" and look to how people earn their money, whether it is income from a job or "earning" their benefits.

I don't think it would be too difficult to have people who claim unemployment benefit (or whatever it is called these days) take 2 hours out their day to put something back into the community, whether that is painting their neighbours fence, doing a clean-up in the street they live, cleaning graffiti......who knows. So effectively the state "employs" them. Again it falls down to work ethic though IMHO, and many many people out there, young and old, have had it way too good for way too long......even a couple of hours would be a "hardship" for them. I know that's harsh and perhaps generalising, but it's what I see throughout my working life. It's maybe an age or generational thing too right enough.

[Beefster]

Again, good post ed and hard to disagree with the points you raise......it's a chicken and egg scenario we now find ourselves in.

I think though we may have to get away from the very words "employed" and "unemployed" and look to how people earn their money, whether it is income from a job or "earning" their benefits.

I don't think it would be too difficult to have people who claim unemployment benefit (or whatever it is called these days) take 2 hours out their day to put something back into the community, whether that is painting their neighbours fence, doing a clean-up in the street they live, cleaning graffiti......who knows. So effectively the state "employs" them. Again it falls down to work ethic though IMHO, and many many people out there, young and old, have had it way too good for way too long......even a couple of hours would be a "hardship" for them. I know that's harsh and perhaps generalising, but it's what I see throughout my working life. It's maybe an age or generational thing too right enough.

I've agreed with much of your posts on this thread and again, I'm all for making claimants 'earn' their dole. Considering the venom that was directed at voluntary working on here before and the argument that it was depriving folk of jobs, you may find that not everyone agrees.

[Big Ed]

Again, good post ed and hard to disagree with the points you raise......it's a chicken and egg scenario we now find ourselves in.

I think though we may have to get away from the very words "employed" and "unemployed" and look to how people earn their money, whether it is income from a job or "earning" their benefits.

I don't think it would be too difficult to have people who claim unemployment benefit (or whatever it is called these days) take 2 hours out their day to put something back into the community, whether that is painting their neighbours fence, doing a clean-up in the street they live, cleaning graffiti......who knows. So effectively the state "employs" them. Again it falls down to work ethic though IMHO, and many many people out there, young and old, have had it way too good for way too long......even a couple of hours would be a "hardship" for them. I know that's harsh and perhaps generalising, but it's what I see throughout my working life. It's maybe an age or generational thing too right enough.

When I mentioned those who exploit the benefits system; I meant those who have absolutely no intention of working for a living and I'd like to distinguish between them and those who have lost their jobs and cannot find new ones. In the majority of cases, those looking for work will eventually find something and I would contend that they are not the issue.
In an ideal world, those who exploit the system would carry out the kind of community work that you describe; however there is an issue of practicality here: how do you get them to do it consistantly and who will make sure that they do?
Maybe a Government Department could be set up and...er, maybe not.

[Beefster]

When I mentioned those who exploit the benefits system; I meant those who have absolutely no intention of working for a living and I'd like to distinguish between them and those who have lost their jobs and cannot find new ones. In the majority of cases, those looking for work will eventually find something and I would contend that they are not the issue.
In an ideal world, those who exploit the system would carry out the kind of community work that you describe; however there is an issue of practicality here: how do you get them to do it consistantly and who will make sure that they do?
Maybe a Government Department could be set up and...er, maybe not.

Make their benefits conditional on it? I'm sure it will be more complicated than a flag on their record that says whether the work was done or not but I can't see how it could be a lot more complicated than that.

I'm sure someone will come up with an argument about how you cannot withdraw benefits as it will leave people with no money but there comes a point when people have to take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences. If you have no valid reason to not to the 'work' but choose not to do it, tough titties when your benefit cash runs out IMHO.

Incidentally, I'm talking about folk with no intention of getting employment too but I don't see the harm in all long-term unemployed spending a few hours a week doing some community work.

[Big Ed]

Make their benefits conditional on it? I'm sure it will be more complicated than a flag on their record that says whether the work was done or not but I can't see how it could be a lot more complicated than that.

I'm sure someone will come up with an argument about how you cannot withdraw benefits as it will leave people with no money but there comes a point when people have to take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences. If you have no valid reason to not to the 'work' but choose not to do it, tough titties when your benefit cash runs out IMHO.

Incidentally, I'm talking about folk with no intention of getting employment too but I don't see the harm in all long-term unemployed spending a few hours a week doing some community work.

They'll make the whole process as complicated and obstructive as humanly possible. The kind of people that I am talking about, have no intention of doing anything that they don't want to do and it is their mission in life to ensure that they are not in any form of employment. I am talking about a level of aggression that will intimidate GPs and other Public Servants and have all the certification to ensure that what it is that stops them from working; also rules them out of painting fences.
The number of people and level of bureaucracy involved in getting 2 hours worth of work out of these folk would instantly equate to a huge financial burden and become impracticable.
Anyone on benefits for the length of time I am talking about (i.e. all their adult life) will not be on Unemployment Benefit. More likely they'll be on some sort of incapacity. The other ace to play is that they'll likely have kids. Adults with no money are one thing; adults with no money to feed their kids are another (regardless of the fact that it is impossible to monitor what exactly the money for the kids food is spent on). What is provided by the State on the most basic compassionate grounds is exploited by the worst sort of cynical manipulation.

[Betty Boop]

I see that sneaky Osbourne has decided to cut the winter fuel payment by £100. A ruthless decision, and affects the most vulnerable in society, our pensioners, at a time when fuel costs are soaring and the UK has the lowest state pension in Europe.

[Beefster]

I see that sneaky Osbourne has decided to cut the winter fuel payment by £100. A ruthless decision, and affects the most vulnerable in society, our pensioners, at a time when fuel costs are soaring and the UK has the lowest state pension in Europe.

Apparently, the current government is only keeping to the previous government's plans. If they introduced means-testing so that pensioners on big pensions weren't receiving free money that they didn't need then they could pay out more to those that do need the help.

[Betty Boop]

Apparently, the current government is only keeping to the previous government's plans. If they introduced means-testing so that pensioners on big pensions weren't receiving free money that they didn't need then they could pay out more to those that do need the help.

I don't think humiliating pensioners by means-testing is the way to go. Its a sad day if we can't look after our OAPs imo.

[Beefster]

I don't think humiliating pensioners by means-testing is the way to go. Its a sad day if we can't look after our OAPs imo.

It's a sad day when the welfare state is paying out money to pensioners who earn more money than 90% of the taxpayers funding the payout. I would have thought that a socialist would have been all kinds of keen about low-paid taxpayers' cash not being routed to the middle classes.

If you think means-testing for a fuel payment is humiliating though, wait until you hear about the sort of hoops that they make you jump through for other benefits....

[bighairyfaeleith]

Apparently, the current government is only keeping to the previous government's plans. If they introduced means-testing so that pensioners on big pensions weren't receiving free money that they didn't need then they could pay out more to those that do need the help.

Depends on the cost of the means testing of course.

[RyeSloan]

I don't think humiliating pensioners by means-testing is the way to go. Its a sad day if we can't look after our OAPs imo.

I agree to an extent and means testing while on the face of it may be an immediate solution does cause pensioners in particular a number of issues.

Fact remains however is that OAP's are living longer and longer while their number is increasing....it's simply not affordable nor practical for people to work for 45 years and then expect the state to care for them for the next 20+.

IMHO the winter fuel allowance should be scrapped completely and aggregated into the state provided pension.

[Big Ed]

I agree to an extent and means testing while on the face of it may be an immediate solution does cause pensioners in particular a number of issues.

Fact remains however is that OAP's are living longer and longer while their number is increasing....it's simply not affordable nor practical for people to work for 45 years and then expect the state to care for them for the next 20+.

IMHO the winter fuel allowance should be scrapped completely and aggregated into the state provided pension.

I don't know the answer to the following question; hopefully someone will enlighten me: do you still get pension if you have worked in this country but moved elsewhere - say Spain?
If so; it'd be a bit much scoring money meant for heating whilst you are having a BBQ in Gran Canaria in December.

[matty_f]

It's a sad day when the welfare state is paying out money to pensioners who earn more money than 90% of the taxpayers funding the payout. I would have thought that a socialist would have been all kinds of keen about low-paid taxpayers' cash not being routed to the middle classes.

If you think means-testing for a fuel payment is humiliating though, wait until you hear about the sort of hoops that they make you jump through for other benefits....


Have we any idea of how many of these pensioners fall into the category of earning more than 90% of the taxpayers funding the payout? It's not a loaded question, I don't know the answer but I'm curious as to how big a drain it is.

I'm all for the benefits going to those that need them and not those that don't, however if it's a case of putting a large majority of needy people through a process of means testing to save a limited amount of money then I don't see the value in doing it.

I certainly think that cutting the winter fuel payment is an unnecessary step, though, but I think there is a growing feeling that the severity of the cuts is unnecessary, also.