[Closed] I agree with Dave

Where to start.......?

I was going to call you a **** for starting another iDave thread... now I don't know what to call you 😕

As an overview I agree with elements, but they are huge, massive sweeping statements that will require very delicate handling, something Dave's not proved he can do just yet.

Going on previous form, I also doubt it will be well-handled.

but following the manta

Lots of people "following the Manta" here 😉

[img] http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWdMKrgjztMkFWSB0ZvVdlaLTgmpz2ppyS5gd8euUz5DDilaUr [/img]

Where to start.......?

Going on previous form, I also doubt it will be well-handled.

I don't think it matters how it's handled - lot's of people will be unhappy while lot's more (tax payers and hard workers) will be happy.

I'm a tax payer and a hard worker - therefore I'm happy to spend less money on those who can't work or won't work in an attempt to encourage them to be more like me 😆

[i]Expecting people on benefits to be able to read, write and count[/i]

would that be in English ?

[i]A cap on the amount people can earn and still live in a council house[/i]

so a hard working family can loose their home to some ****less benefit scroungers. Interesting concept.

Also add, scrap sickness benefits; if you fall ill, hurt yourself on your bike, develop cancer etc. then you're no use to society.

Why should us hard working tax payers be expected to keep your family?

Klunk - Member
so a hard working family can loose their home to some ****less benefit scroungers. Interesting concept.

Depends on the cap, if it is set just below whatever Bob Crowe earns I'm all for it. 🙂

Can't we just ghettoise them all and work them to the [s]bone[/s] healthy weight?

Always difficult to find a way back into society for the disenfranchised, no sane person would want his job.

As has been said good basis of ideas, but implementing them? That's a whole order of magnitude harder.

A cap on the amount people can earn and still live in a council house

so a hard working family can loose their home to some ****less benefit scroungers. Interesting concept.

Can we not recycle the unemployed, ill and infirm into dog food or something useful?

[i]A cap on the amount people can earn and still live in a council house[/i]

so a hard working family can loose their home to some ****less benefit scroungers. Interesting concept.

I think if the council rents are a lot lower than the going rate in the area, then people earning above a certain amount should lose the "subsidy" maybe, and pay the going rate.

But they certainly shouldn't have to leave.

Can we not recycle the unemployed, ill and infirm into dog food or something useful?

I wouldn't even feed them to my dog, the parasites. How about we use them as cheap fuel?

What' a lovely person you are let's hope done of your family ever get out off work or end up the last few years of their on sickness benefit as they are dying from a illness caused by the working conditions they worked in . 👿

Who are you talking to Non Stop Nun... my God delusions mean I think everyone is talking to me.

I wouldn't even feed them to my dog, the parasites. How about we use them as cheap fuel?

Can't you make tallow from animal fat? Surely that would be a good idea for compulsory harvesting of fatties. Have tallow, make candles, give to poor people for food and light.

so a hard working family can loose their home to some ****less benefit scroungers. Interesting concept.

Personally, I'd be happy with kicking out any tenants who can't differentiate between [i]lose[/i] and [i]loose[/i].

The trouble with CMD's speech today is that it focuses on the current situation and is all about the budget. It doesn't tackle the deep, long term causes which sees people end up on benefits, and isn't about making people's lives better or easier. It is summed up by the fact he's keeping the pensioner benefits untouched - he's clearly and solely motivated by re-election. Which, by the way, is a long way off. Stop campaigning three years in advance and sort out an economic growth plan you son of a tax dodger.

Reduce the amount of benefit paid to people over time
[b]surely when the welfare state is MOST important is when you simply can't work long term[/b]
Expecting people on benefits to be able to read, write and count
[b]so if the state fails you in education, or if you suffer physical or mental learning difficulties your ****ed [/b]
Out-of-work benefits linked to wages rather than inflation, if wages are lower
[b]I can see the logic, although it might be better if they kept wages in line with inflation (or managed the economy so inflation was in line with wages)! If you are on the poverty line, then cost, not other people's wealth, is presumably what matters.[/b]
A cap on the amount people can earn and still live in a council house[b]are council houses now just to be ghetto's for the poorest? its not very tory to remove aspiration from those in a council house for fear of loosing their home is it? perhaps if his predecessor hadn't flogged them all off cheap he wouldn't have a shortage[/b]
Reduce the current £20,000 housing benefit limit
[b]because that will ensure that some of the largest families in the UK become homeless, and therefore multiple children grow up in proper poverty?[/b]
Stopping the out of work being better off by having children
[b]is he planning eugenics or just ensuring that children in families out of work have the worst possible start in life ?[/b]
Consider paying some benefits "in kind" rather than in cash
[b] now that might actually be logical, although it does assume that daily mail stereo types are right and people squander their benefit, as well as presuming that 'government procured in kind services' would be possible on the same value as the citizens manage themselves - which is probably flawed[/b]
Expecting parents on income support to prepare for work while children have free nursery care
[b]or some of the poorest children can miss out on the educational advantages of early years education, so parents don't need to endure whatever pointless programme he has in mind[/b]
Getting the physically able to do full-time community work after a period out of work
[b]not really a problem with that - but what are we actually saying? get people to work for the state for less than minimum wage? otherwise it will be cheaper for councils to use the out of work rather than employ people?[/b]
Sickness benefit claimants should take steps to improve their health
[b]does he really believe the majority of claimants are wilfully neglecting their health to maximise their income[/b]

poly +1

For completeness, this appears to be the rest of the article quoted by the OP.
Sounds like he wants to cut benefits to the poorest areas by the most.
An appeal to his right wing allies?
Another attack on the North?

[b][u]Benefits rates may depend on where you live, No 10 suggests[/u][/b]

Benefits rates could vary according to where someone lives, under welfare changes David Cameron is considering.
No 10 says the prime minister wants to look at whether it still "makes sense" to set payments at a national level, given differing regional pay levels.
Although he dropped the idea from the final text of his speech on welfare, No 10 says it is among ideas which also includes cutting benefits over time.
The PM said he wanted to debate the ideas for the next Tory manifesto.
But he said he also hoped that his coalition government partners, the Lib Dems, might agree with some of the ideas so they could be brought in before the next election, which is due in 2015.
Mr Cameron's speech is being seen as an attempt to reconnect with disgruntled Tory backbenchers who have accused him of allowing the Liberal Democrats to water down traditional party values.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18575453

Sounds like he wants to cut benefits to the poorest areas by the most.

and why not if the cost of living there is less?

Sounds like he wants to cut benefits to the poorest areas by the most.
and why not if the cost of living there is less?

So all the poor unemployed just move to where the cost of living is more then and as you have to house them it will cost the government more than it was ?

@Turner Guy So by that you presumably assume that poorest areas have the lowest cost of living, is that the case?

And if it is the case, surely taking more money out of the local economy is just going to make the area poorer? How is that going to help?

Could it be a desperate attempt to stay in power?
As head of the UK parliament, he can't openly campaign for Scottish devolution.
But if his policies aggressively target areas furthest from the South East, he achieves this and loses 5 million opposition votes before the next election.
Its the only way he'll be re-elected. 😉

and why not if the cost of living there is less?

What exactly is it that will cost less though? Housing the only thing that I can think of but isn't it the case that rent is paid in full so this is already less in poorer areas? I'm struggling to see what else will cost less in poorer areas than in richer ones. The cost of utilities doesn't vary geographically, council tax isn't paid by those on benefits (and would be less in any case) food is roughly the same as are 50" plasma TVs and a sky subscription. So what is it that will cost less?

So we could sack everyone who works in the public sector, and then if they apply for unemployment benefit we could force them to do their old job for £50 a week as "community service". Imagine how much money we could save if we didn't have to pay all those pesky teachers/nurses/doctors/firemen/policemen/civil servants. We could even do it to the people who work at the jobcentres!

@Turner Guy So by that you presumably assume that poorest areas have the lowest cost of living, is that the case?

And if it is the case, surely taking more money out of the local economy is just going to make the area poorer? How is that going to help?

notice how I said IF, as in IF the cost of living is less.

Plus indexing benefits to regional pay scales also makes sense.

So we could sack everyone who works in the public sector

There were some stats in the Metro the other day reckoning that the number of new private sector jobs outweighed the losses in the public sector, even accounting for the split between full and part time.

Those are largely banal meaningless statements. Try reversing them and stating the opposite view and you'll see that the opposite is nonsense. It demonstrates how little is being said in these statements

Reduce the amount of benefit paid to people over time
[b]why? what about now when there are F all jobs? do you need less money the longer you are out of work....i assume he wont include pensions in this brainwave?[/b]
Expecting people on benefits to be able to read, write and count
[b]some people are not very bright and they tend to struggle to get work... you cannot polish a turd ..trust me not everyone can learn to do these things. What about those with Learning disabilities for example?[/b]
Out-of-work benefits linked to wages rather than inflation, if wages are lower
[b]Can I link mine to the chairs of FTSE companies please?[/b]
A cap on the amount people can earn and still live in a council house
[b]Why - good role model for the community and why do you have to leave your area if you are successful?[/b]
Reduce the current £20,000 housing benefit limit
[b]By building affordable housing and making them live there? How exactly will homelessness help? [/b]
Stopping the out of work being better off by having children
[b]the point here is to keep the children out of poverty - I will read you to read about the outcome sof children brought in poverty to understand the rationale[/b]
Consider paying some benefits "in kind" rather than in cash
[b]Bit vague, what exactly?[/b]
Expecting parents on income support to prepare for work while children have free nursery care
[b]Thanks god we have so many jobs that should be both cost neutral and also work. I fail to see how adding this lot to the pool of job seekers helps I shall let you onto a little secret there are no jobs. Employers seem reluctant to employ single mums on term time hours .....perhaps he should target them rather than the parents? A quata perhaps?[/b]
Getting the physically able to do full-time community work after a period out of work
[b]Is this how he plans to enforce Big Society? it really depends what it is but the delivery is not cost neutral and a counter argument is it removes some jobs from the market. For example they could cut grass and the council cut the maintenance department. Depends how it is implemented but it will cost circa £20-50 per person per week to administer[/b]
Sickness benefit claimants should take steps to improve their health
[b]Homeopathy? faith healing? That is the thing ill people like being ill as it is such fun...when you are so ill you cannot even work the fun never ends.
I work with those on ESA and I would not swap places with them and every single one of them would take the blue pill that made them well again. Again it would not be cost neutral[/b]

Oerall some knee jerk right wing rhetoric that appeals to those who want to hit so called benefit scroungers hard but [ due to costs and not all of us being ****s] not likely to ever happen

 

There were some stats in the Metro the other day reckoning that the number of new private sector jobs outweighed the losses in the public sector, even accounting for the split between full and part time.

did it also explain why unemployment had risen if this has happened?