Forum menu
Jambalaya - my kids go to the library at least once a week. It's central to their development and a real pleasure going with them. It's also a key part of developing the community.
You do know how the UK election system works don't you!
Yes a party that does not get a majority of the votes wins then claims a mandate from the people . You do see why some object to this claim ? Most people dont want them to do what they are claiming they have the peoples mandate to do.
They did reject a sort of PR but what would they do if offered PR?As for PR the public rejected a sort of PR system in a referendum within the last 5 years or so.
They did reject a sort of PR but what would they do if offered PR?
Probably whatever the Daily Mail tells them to do....
They won a free and fair election only a couple of months ago and are obviously what the public wanted
They're not what the 76% of the electorate who didn’t vote for them wanted
And if anyone on here is complaining about what they are doing, it only counts if you voted for someone else.
Hardly! Cameron gave an explicit promise not to cut tax credits prior to the election...
[i]Hardly! Cameron gave an explicit promise not to cut tax credits prior to the election... [/i]
Did he? I CBA to read it, but please point out which page it was said as I kinda assumed they'd won based on a cutting welfare 'platform'. Could be wrong, happy to be shown.
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto
The council letter states "the council tax referendum threshold of 1.99% has meant that we have been unable to keep pace with our challenges by using local revenue raising powers - if we had been permitted to make the planned modest increase of 3-3.75% over the decade we would be facing 50 million less of required savings"
Surely this is disingenuous, they could have put council tax up if they had wanted to, but were too afraid of democracy to hold a referendum.
Did he? I CBA to read it, but please point out which page it was said as I kinda assumed they'd won based on a cutting welfare 'platform'. Could be wrong, happy to be shown.
You don't have to read the manifesto he was interviewed several times b4 the election saying he w wouldn't, someone will be along with a YouTube clip in a sec..
I see the story has made it to the BBC. although somewhat toned down in its criticism,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34788129
Another bonus of all the threats of cuts to the BBC has been their critical attitude toward the government, its a Tory dream come true, the poor get hammered and the BBC are nicely compliant about it all.
Did he? I CBA to read it, but please point out which page it was said as I kinda assumed they'd won based on a cutting welfare 'platform'. Could be wrong, happy to be shown.
as noted he never said where they were coming form but he did say not from tax credits and then did it
They then claim a mandate to do the thing the said they would not do based on most people not voting for them
God love democracy eh
There are some really interesting poinst in that letter from the Oxfordshire council:
1) the NHS is being rewarded for failure.
2) Increased population growth putting a strain on finances.
3) Why are more kids moving into social carer?
4) Finally government finances aren't dynamic enough to cope with increasing investment into areas that are doing well.
FFS why all the whingeing about the Tories? They won a free and fair election only a couple of months ago and are obviously what the public wanted
Because this isn't North Korea.
In "a fair and free" democracy you are allowed to discuss and criticise the government and their policies - [i]even[/i] if you voted for them.
(which most of us didn't)
Oh and yeah, jambalaya, we regularly use the local library too.
Pretty useful place when you have two kids learning to read.
I hope those who question the validity of libraries do not then criticise sections of the public for not achieving enough..books and libraries are core elements to education - cut libraries and you limit the potential for mass education..the hypocrisy of some of the policies is ridiculous...
1) the NHS is being rewarded for failure.
The way I read it the failure was clearly in the funding system, not the NHS.
He says the NHS are lumbered with patients costing £4500 a week in hospital beds, who could and should be discharged to Social Services but they don't the budget for that.
So instead the NHS overspends its budget.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8337702
b r - I'm sure you seen this video of Cameron on QT regards not cutting tax credits....
i believe that housing benefit is currently £25Billion per year. The government want to clamp down on tax credits, but where is the effort on HB? Or maybe it is that HB is actually another tax payer subsidy to the rich?
Did he? I CBA to read it, but please point out which page it was said as I kinda assumed they'd won based on a cutting welfare 'platform'. Could be wrong, happy to be shown.
Watch this, he said it live on air a few weeks before the election when grilled on where the cuts would be.
FFS why all the whingeing about the Tories? They won a free and fair election only a couple of months ago and are obviously what the public wanted
They won with 27% of the electorate supporting them, even looking at voters they still failed to get anywhere near 50% support. They only have a mandate because the UK electoral system is not fit for purpose. Look at Scotland and it is even worse, SNP have virtually every scottish MP and yet their share of the vote is nothing like that commanding.
jambalaya - Member
JY I'd guess the other 60% don't claim Tax Credits, I'd also wager a very significant portion of that 60% don't pay sufficient tax to cover the cost of healthcare, edication etc. Singaporean immigration is very targeted and based on how much tax you'll pay. There is a happy ground in the middle.
IPPR’s analysis suggests that the NAFI for migrants in 1999-2000 was 1.06, higher than the UK-born value (1.01). For 2003-2004, the difference between migrants and the UK-born increased; the NAFI for migrants was 0.99 compared to 0.88 for the UK-born. The fact that the NAFI was less than one suggests that in 2003-2004 the net fiscal contribution of migrants was negative, but that it was “less negative” than that of the UK-born individuals.
From [url= http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk ]First useful looking Google result[/url]
Edit - Of course don't let actual evidence or studies get in the way of your guesswork.
mrmo - its not in the politicians interest to deal with housing benefit. Many of them (one quarter of Tories) are landlords and rely on housing benefit to pay their tenants rents...oh hang on, does that mean Tories are benefiting from the welfare state? Surely not...oh hang on, didn't they too use all the expenses (taking from the state again) to supplement their wages? Hypocrites...
Watch this, he said it live on air a few weeks before the election when grilled on where the cuts would be
Let's be totally accurate:
[i]"Child tax credit we increased by £450.... Not going to fall"[/i]
Which is true isn't it? The amount hasn't fallen, it's still the same, they've merely changed the figure where it begins to taper off.
You can criticise them for that, you can disagree with it, but you have to be robust and accurate in that criticism, and he never said that they wouldn't change any other factors of the tax credits system that might reduce the overall bill.
mrmo - its not in the politicians interest to deal with housing benefit
Worse than that, they're guaranteeing spending on it will rise by forcing House Associations to sell off their housings stock at a loss as part of Help to Buy, reducing social housing. But as Landlords, they'll actually benefit from this as they'll be more social tenants paying their mortgages.
Don't know about you Guys. I'd settle for the Canadian government though 😉
BR
JeZ
You can criticise them for that, you can disagree with it, but you have to be robust and accurate in that criticism, and he never said that they wouldn't change any other factors of the tax credits system that might reduce the overall bill.
I'd say that defence is roughly the same as saying "Ah but I had my fingers crossed" or "I didn't say Simon Says".
David Dumbledore's question was pretty clear.
The fact that Cameron gave an answer that just [i]appeared[/i] clear and definitive, but actually wasn't, doesn't really excuse it.
JY who really goes to the Library these days ? Libraries occupy expensive and valuable property in town centres and sadly are yesterdays news, the world including publishing is increasingly online these days.
It's a US cartoon, but the message is the same:
[img] 
[/img]
I'd say that defence is roughly the same as saying "Ah but I had my fingers crossed" or "I didn't say Simon Says".
😀
JY who really goes to the Library these days ? Libraries occupy expensive and valuable property in town centres and sadly are yesterdays news, the world including publishing is increasingly online these day
Ahh, the old "this is not something I use so lets get rid" argument.
I don't claim a pension now so lets get rid of them. They seem to get the biggest cut of welfare.
Libraries. So cut something else then but the tough choice is what, it's a local council / authority level decision. That was the point of Cameron's letter. Our welfare budget is huge, the cuts in Tax Credits are £4.4bn over a £30bn annual spend, even after the cuts they will cost £25.6bn vs a bill of just £5bn before Labour extended them and saw the total balloon (as per @ninfans chart from the other thread).
What we are seeing now is the real cost of Labour's mismanagement of the economy, it's tough and painful to reign in excessive spending. Much more difficult than just writing cheques.
People won't vote for higher taxes, Labour's position is always that money will be raised from "someone else", eg the "rich" (ie not Labour voters) or from companies (without recognising they are simply a collection of employees).
There was a quote earlier that someone like Cameron can afford a £2k tax ride more than a person on tax credit can afford a £2k cut, yes of course that's true. But taxes on "the rich" are substantially higher than they where in 2007 and in any case increasing taxes on the likes of Mr Cameron won't come close to the £4.4bn of cuts being sought in Tax Credits.
There is a clamour for local representation and decision making and here we have it, local councils deciding how to cut spending. There are choices to be made, if you don't want to cut X then you'll have to cut Y instead.
Any chance we can cut whatever cable allows you to type this bollocks all the time?
What we are seeing now is the real cost of Labour's mismanagement of the economy
That would be the same mismanagement which had the largest budget surplus of any government in the last 40 years? (Admitedly in their 1st term, but still much larger than [b]ANY[/b] Tory Government ever.)
it's tough and painful to reign in excessive spending
Also, completely unnecessary as the current interest on the national debt (as a % of GDP) is quite modest by recent standards.
So tempted to call out some of the utter nonsense up there ^^^^^ but it's pointless arguing with someone so blinkered.
I don't claim a pension now so lets get rid of them. They seem to get the biggest cut of welfare.
Aye there's a plan - sorted.
the largest budget surplus of any government in the last 40 years?
Probably not the best defence when you claim to have ended boom and bust...
What we are seeing now is the real cost of Labour's mismanagement of the economy
I can't believe we bailed Labour out, they told us it was the banks!
Not sure why anyone would want to defend any political party but I'll leave you to it until your medication kicks in 🙄
Probably not the best defence when you claim to have ended boom and bust...
Still ironic that the 'utterly inept' profligate spending Labour chancellors did better at something which the 'highly competent' frugal Tory chancellors are supposed to be very good at.
[img] 
[/img]
To me, it looks like the Tories have only run a budget surplus for two years (since 1979), whereas Labour did for four years (and a much bigger surplus) but then what do I know using real data to form my opinions....
Any chance we can cut whatever cable allows you to type this bollocks all the time?
+1
i've come to conclusion he's a moron
Jambayla you're a Tory party wet dream. I genuinely hope your part of the top table or your blinkedly being dicked over like the rest of us, but fighting their corner for them... 😀
Can I just congratulate jamabalayayal;a on so concisely summing up the kind of ignorance and stupidity that leads people to voting for such a bunch of useless divs. if only more people read the Daily mail they'd realise that it's all their default and the more tax you can dodge, the more you deserve to keep the money. Libraries? Who needs them? poor people who can't afford books and if they can't afford books why do they need to read? And they can' read, they'll never find out how much they're being shafted.
And why aren't the council cutting"back room staff"? After all it's just "jobs for the boys" and any other number of cliches for dimwits you care to mention - you'd never find that going on in Tory land would you? What's Osborne's qualification for the job, other than "went to the same school as Cameron"?
[quote=BigButSlimmerBloke said] What's Osborne's qualification for the job, other than "went to the same school as [s]Cameron[/s] Harriet Harman"?
i've come to conclusion he's a moron
There's an awful lot of evidence that points to that conclusion.
As I've said before, there are people who's political opinionsI disagree with but I can respect their view. The rubbish Jambalaya constantly spouts is just beneath contempt.
jambalaya - Member
...Our welfare budget is huge...
just checking, you're not including pensions in welfare are you?
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/to-help-fuel-their-propaganda-machine-against-the-poor-our-government-has-now-decided-to-redefine-9873127.html ]pensions aren't welfare[/url]
[i]He says the NHS are lumbered with patients costing £4500 a week in hospital beds, who could and should be discharged to Social Services but they don't the budget for that.
So instead the NHS overspends its budget.
[/i]
Yep. This came up when I worked in the NHS, seemed simple to me - just move (enough of) the budget from the NHS to Social Services. And since it cost less for Social Services to do it, money saved.
Political/Management will to do it? Zero.
Political/Management will to do it? Zero.
They can't go cutting NHS budgets - that makes it too obvious.
Much stealthier to keep stretching it so it fails on its own. That way they can blame it all on those lazy greedy doctors and sell it all off via PFI.
@ Jambalaya, yes the welfare budget is huge, but then so's the tax evasion being conducted by big business and suchlike: [url= http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/09/22/new-report-the-tax-gap-is-119-4-billion-and-rising/ ]some tax research bloke[/url] and [url= http://leftfootforward.org/2015/02/tax-cheats-cost-far-more-than-benefits-cheats-yet-far-fewer-are-prosecuted/ ]some lefty website[/url] and finally [url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/honest-victims-of-tax-dodgers-6967124.html ]the Evening Standard from 3 years ago[/url].
Some of this is individual tax "planning" and some corporate, but it seems to be the general consensus across lots of different data that around £35bn is lost in corporate avoidance each year (which despite [url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100075906/tax-avoidance-isnt-morally-wrong-its-perfectly-sensible-behaviour/ ]Toby Young's[/url] opinion, would go a long way to helping to avoid cuts to key public services, regardless of if YOU think they're valuable)
companies are not and never have been a "of employees" that would be coop's and some partnerships.
Yep. This came up when I worked in the NHS, seemed simple to me - just move (enough of) the budget from the NHS to Social Services. And since it cost less for Social Services to do it, money saved.Political/Management will to do it? Zero.
The problem is splitting things up all the way up to the dept of health and the dept for local govt. The NHS doesn't want to have medically healthy patients sitting in expensive hospital beds, they want patients who NEED to be in hospital to be there. But the councils don't want to rush to take on responsibility of those patients. Every day they're in hospital is a day that the council isn't footing the bill for their care.
I know that some hospitals are running "discharge to assess" schemes where patients who don't need round the clock medical care but might need supervision/'pop in' type care due to things like dementia, wound care, medication, not being able to feed/clean themselves etc are discharged into nursing homes. Their beds are cheaper than acute hospital beds so it's better for the patients to wait there while the local council figures out what it's doing with them.
But all the way to the top, local government and health are separate, so who can make this stuff happen? As a taxpayer i'd rather the council spent £10 than have the NHS spend £50, for the same outcome. But if I were a council finance boss, I'd rather the NHS spent £1000 than I spend £1. The NHS would want the councils to discharge people into social care/nursing homes really quickly but it has absolutely no way of making the councils spend the money to get that service in place.