[Closed] Same old Tories...

Perhaps they'll all marry someone who's looks you approve of and even things out?

Yeah but Sam Cam is waaay fitter than millibands wife

You could always go back to selling drugs lodders?

Yep they are freezing benefits for 2 years unless you are in their voter demographic.
I see nurses and mid wives are planning on striking too. Good on em.

I see nurses and mid wives are planning on striking too. Good on em.

It's the whole of the NHS depending on the Union you're in.

You could always go back to selling drugs lodders?

That ship has long since sailed, would have put me in a higher tax bracket though.

same old tory story ..

getting more in work than ever before, unemployment falling, cutting council waste fastest growing economy in developed world. the only party committed to an in out referendum on europe. getting dr's to be open 7 days a week, 12 hours a day.

in fact putting right all the stuff gormless brown, ed ballsup and tony bliar got wrong. heaven forbid that oik wrong milliband becomes prime minister

I am no expert on the subject but didn't a study show that lowering the high earner tax rate actually put more money into the public purse rather than less? Something to do with people in that tax bracket choosing which country they pay their tax rather than us plebs on PAYE.

same old tory story ..
getting more in work than ever before, unemployment falling, cutting council waste fastest growing economy in developed world. the only party committed to an in out referendum on europe. getting dr's to be open 7 days a week, 12 hours a day.
in fact putting right all the stuff gormless brown, ed ballsup and tony bliar got wrong. heaven forbid that oik wrong milliband becomes prime minister

🙄

my own council are having to close 60% of public libraries due to cuts

They don't [b]have[/b] to close them, they could have put your council tax up instead

same old tory story ..

Vacuous spin you mean?

Unemployment falling.. because the global financial crisis is easing.. but would it have been better under anyone else? You have no idea.

How can people be so thick as to not understand this? It undermines the whole concept of democracy.

You could always go back to selling drugs lodders?

Quite right, pharmacy is a well-paid occupation.

The top rate of tax was raised from 40+2 to 50+2 (inc NI) and the Tories reduced the rate back to 45, still an increase relative to the longer term. It is well documented that higher rates of tax often lead to lower amounts collected as businesses and individuals relocate and/or change their tax planning.

Cuts in public services have been necessary due to the excessive debts run up by the prior Labour government and which where spiralling out of control.

Which people are struggling to pay anyway. My city is the poorest in the country, putting up council tax not really an option. Either way, the poorest will be hit hardest.

putting up council tax not really an option.

How do you expect local services to be paid for then? the magic money tree?

If taxpayers want something, shouldn't they have to pay for it?

Have you ever heard of the concept of 'the parade of the bleeding stumps'? I'll bet my bike that there hasn't been a 60% cut in councillors expenses and diversity officers!

Cuts in public services have been necessary due to the [s]excessive debts run up by the prior Labour government[/s] global financial crisis

Choose your spin.

getting more in work than ever before, unemployment falling, cutting council waste fastest growing economy in developed world. the only party committed to an in out referendum on europe. getting dr's to be open 7 days a week, 12 hours a day.

😆

Cuts in public services have been necessary due to the excessive debts run up by the prior Labour government and which where spiralling out of control.

Careful, the lefties don't like the truth.. 🙂

For the last 4 years its been blah... blah.... blah... 'Hard Working Families' this, blah... blah.... blah... 'Hard Working Families' that....

'Hard Working Families', 'Hard Working Families' , oh... did we mention we're all for 'Hard Working Families' . We love 'Hard Working Families' us. All for 'Hard Working Families'.

Oh... actually when we said 'Hard Working Families', what we really meant was nice middle class, Tory voting 'Hard Working Families'. Not the horrid poor ones. Ewwwwwww. With their tracksuits, and shopping at Iceland, and living up north. How frightful.

So the benefits bill is mahoosive because the working poor don't earn enough to live. Because employers refuse to pay a living wage, so we, the taxpayer, subsidise their profits instead. Private rents are rocketing due to the housing market going into the stratosphere again (got to have the middle classes feeling better off as we approach an election, haven't we?). All to be added to the Housing Benefit bill for the poor to pass into the hands of buy-to-let landlords.

So how do we address this? Do we raise the minimum wage to allow people to actually live on the wages they earn, without the taxpayer subsidy? Consider regulating the rented sector so that people aren't ripped off by profiteering private landlords

Naaaaah.... * that! We'll do what we always do..... just clobber the *ing poor again! Lets make life just that little bit harder from the very poorest people in society.

Without doing anything at all to address the actual root causes of the problem, because that would involve questioning whether this whole capitalist system we've built is completely dysfunctional. But then... it is our mates who benefit from it all, so who ****ing cares eh George?

[img] [/img]

Careful, the lefties don't like the truth.. 🙂

It's actually the Tories who don't like to be reminded of the truth.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm ]Tories 'to match Labour spending'[/url]

[b][i]A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.[/i][/b]

Cuts needed because short termism by the last Labour government stopped them saving in the good times so there was nothing in the rainy day fund when it all went tits up.

Anyway, good to see the old Lodders back, was quite worried by his non-PC day yesterday!

The Tories have brought about the largest fall in average earnings in almost a century:

[img] [/img]

Hold on. Is this a thinly veiled NHS thread?

. It is well documented that higher rates of tax often lead to lower amounts collected as businesses and individuals relocate and/or change their tax planning.

It is widely written and the logic makes sense but is it actually proven with hard evidence?

Oh christ. Can we get off the usual... it was your fault, no it was their fault nonsense. Its all so tediously circular 🙄

The thread is about the 'Effing Tories' (Daves phrase, not mine) reverting to type and making the poor bear the brunt of all the cuts, while the better off survive completely unscathed, yet again

Can the usual Tory, neo-liberal stormtroopers justify an effective cut in pay for the poorest payed in our society - lets call them 'Hard Working Families, shall we? - while nobody else is being asked to make any sacrifices?

Off you go....

jambalaya - Member
The top rate of tax was raised from 40+2 to 50+2 (inc NI) and the Tories reduced the rate back to 45, still an increase relative to the longer term. It is well documented that higher rates of tax often lead to lower amounts collected as businesses and individuals relocate and/or change their tax planning.

How many people earning over £150,000 are going to move abroad?

Cuts in public services have been necessary due to the excessive debts run up by the prior Labour government and which where spiralling out of control.

Do you think spending should have been immediately cut to match the fall in tax receipts due to the global financial crisis?

totalshell - Member
same old tory story ..

getting more in work than ever before, unemployment falling, cutting council waste fastest growing economy in developed world. the only party committed to an in out referendum on europe. getting dr's to be open 7 days a week, 12 hours a day.

More people in low paid, part time and enforced self-employment, i also hate wasteful council service like libraries and museums. Europe is only an issue for Tory MPs. GPs don't need to be open on Sundays.

Personally, i think this is the most telling graph about Osborne's genius:

[img] :large[/img]

The fundamental flaw that no one seems willing to address is that a lot benefit spending gets paid to people in work. Partly due to low wages, partly due to a lack of affordable housing.

The next government needs to start to address these issues, which will be a painful and expensive long term process, potentially needing more public money to fund the housing by either taxing or borrowing, and increasing everyones cost of living to pay higher livable wages.

Plus a lot of people need to be educated as to what their priorities need to be when they are on a low income. I visit benefit claimants as part of my job, nothing beats being told that they can't be there to see me as they are in Spain for a fortnight, or if they are there, you can't hear yourself think due to Sky Movies blaring out their 90" plasma screen.

Not all of them, but a sizable minority.

The Tories have [i]brought about[/i] the largest fall in average earnings in almost a century:

The joy of stats.

[img] [/img]

Look at the horrifying dip in wages! It's during a Labour government...

It's easy to twist stats and charts to mislead, but I suppose the alternative is politically unacceptable in the run-up to an election.

We won't see either party saying that external influences have been as important in determining employment and wage growth as government policy in recent years.

Labour and Conservative projected spending plans for the next parliament are not massively different, neither has any magic lever to pull when it comes to public sector pay over the next five years.

You have to take money from someone. Who's it going to be, low-paid workers who are likely to vote labour or defect to UKIP, or pensioners?

Oldnpastit, well thats exactly it isnt it. Highlights the flaws in our political system and the career politician.

last night at 22.14 had a potential customer ring up to have a cooker fitted..
''can you come after 4 o clock?''
''is that when your home from work?''
''no i dont work but i like to stay in bed till at least dinner.. and i ll need some time to tidy up and do the pots..''

Amazing totalshell wtf has that got to do with anything?

Its fine coming out with spurious Daily Mail-esque anecdotes about 'scroungers', but the vast majority of these cuts are going to hit the working poor. People who's wages don't allow them a living wage.

But is there any subsequent demand for employers to actually pay people a salary they can live on? Of course not. This is the ****ing Tories we're talking about here 🙄

I think totalshell was focusing on how incredibly lazy retired people can be 💡

The [s]Tories have[/s] global financial crisis has brought about the largest fall in average earnings in almost a century:

I can play this game all day.

Without doing anything at all to address the actual root causes of the problem, because that would involve questioning whether this whole capitalist system we've built is completely dysfunctional. But then... it is our mates who benefit from it all, so who ****ing cares eh George?

But would it have been better under anybody else? You have no idea.

FWIW I agree with many on here that the system is fundamentally broken and there has to be a better way to do things.

The kind of misinformation that makes people vote Tory/UKIP:

[IMG] [/IMG]

I can play this game all day.

Well as a self-confessed Tory voter make your mind up aracer, is it all the fault of global financial crisis ?

Or is the global situation only relevant when there are bad news headlines and the Tories are in power ?

the vast majority of these cuts are going to hit the working poor. People who's wages don't allow them a living wage.

So you're saying The tories are stopping subsidising employers who pay low wages by topping up their employees wages with taxpayers money?

What a bloody good idea!

Or is the global situation only relevant when there are bad news headlines and [s]the Tories are in power[/s] Labour don't want to take the blame for it

and round the circle goes...

I think totalshell was focusing on how incredibly lazy retired people can be

I think totalshell was focusing on how incredibly lazy rich people can be.

So you're saying The tories are stopping subsidising employers who pay low wages by topping up their employees wages with taxpayers money?

What a bloody good idea!

and letting food banks worry about feeding them, natch

What a bloody good idea!

Really ? You think it's a good idea ? 😯

I'm assuming of course that as a committed right-wing Tory supporter you're not in favour in increasing the bargaining power of low paid workers.

Yeah, of course, why on earth should the taxpayer subsidise companies to pay wages that their staff can't live on? We constantly hear that this is a bad thing for governments to do!

If their staff can't live on the wages, they'll have to start paying more rather than expecting the taxpayer to make up the difference, otherwise they'll have no staff!

Companies with no staff tend to not make any money...

I think its a good idea to cut back on in work benefits.
I also think that the minimum wage should be increased so that a full time worker doesn't need them.

If their staff can't live on the wages, they'll have to start paying more rather than expecting the taxpayer to make up the difference, otherwise they'll have no staff!

With over 2 million (officially) unemployed, and IDS's assault on the ability of people to actually qualify for benefits at all, a casualised, zero hours culture, mass immigration etc... having a steady flow of people trying to exist on subsistence level wages isn't really an issue

I'm in agreement with you its a crazy situation to subsidise companies to pay poverty level wages. But punishing the employee isn't going to address it, is it? Not without pressure on the employers. And the government won't even countenance that!

If their staff can't live on the wages, they'll have to start paying more....

It's unlikely that staff will start dying because they can't live on their wages, and even if they do I'm sure the employers can find replacements.

In which case why would they need to "start paying more" ?

You haven't even suggested increasing the minimum wage, which is bizarre considering your claim that taxpayers are subsidising employers.

to be fair on the Torys, they really are struggling against the UKIP onslaught and need this kind of basic rightwing tubthumping

Theresa May is about to unveil* another raft of utterly redundant policies to counter the 'threat of terrorism'

Dave also pledged to protect pensioner benefits ......wonder why that is?

and guess what after Boris said UKIP defectors are 'Utterly Nuts' his deputy mayor has announced hes defecting to UKIP

Id expect a lot more of the same before the election

just wish there was a credible opposition

* I say unveil, everything gets leaked/sent to the press before the actual announcement?

So, assuming I want a rational, evidence-based government in power, should I:

(a) vote Tory to keep UKIP out
(b) vote Libdem to keep the Tories out
(c) vote Labour to make a pointless gesture (at least here)
(d) move to Scotland and campaign for an independence referendum?

It's unlikely that staff will start dying because they can't live on their wages, and even if they do I'm sure the employers can find replacements.

In which case why would they need to "start paying more" ?

Where are they going to find replacements if people can't live on the pay they are offering?

You're a marxist Ernie, you know that it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development without revolution.

ultimately if theres no work or benefits, people will start stealing food and rioting in the streets, that tends to be bad for business too, so someone will have to step in and do something about it

You haven't even suggested increasing the minimum wage, which is bizarre considering your claim that taxpayers are subsidising employers.

No problem at all with that!

You alleged I'm not in favour in increasing the bargaining power of low paid workers - I'd say I'm all for it, the ultimate bargaining power is to stop playing the game and hold two fingers up with one hand, (whilst holding half a brick with the other)

make your mind up aracer, is it all the fault of global financial crisis ?

I have thanks - yes, mostly (or were you expecting me to contradict myself?) Do I think we might be in a different situation had the Tories been in power when it happened? Yes. Do I think we'd be in a better situation? I have no idea.

A good idea would be to use the same disingenuous language as the Tory's prefer when talking about other issues involving frightful poor people,

So as they insist that the 'Bedroom Tax' isn't a tax at all, but a 'Spare Room Subsidy', then maybe we should start calling Working Tax Credits 'Poverty Pay Subsidy' instead, then publish the list of the employers paying it.

I'd be more than happy with the government withdrawing the onus on taxpayers to cover this 'Poverty Pay Subsidy' . But at the same time raise the minimum wage by the exact amount this 'Poverty Pay Subsidy' is being reduced by.

If thats what they were proposing, I doubt you'd get many arguments.

But they're not.

[i]Companies with no staff tend to not make any money... [/i]
Good point, missed by the left, who are too busy crying about the rich and calling for Labour to rob the rich and duff-up the companies. As I've posted before, the left either can't or don't want to understand the free market. I suspect, mostly because it involves a smaller state.

If someone is in work and still feels the need to claim. Either they accepted a wage which was too low, or they're spending more than they can afford. Quite how this becomes the Governments problem, which needs to be sorted with tax payers money, is a bit naughty. Demand better wages, tell the share holders that their ROI will be 20% instead of 30% because the 10% is required to pay a fair wage.
Of course, the share holders won't listen, they'll call your bluff, knowing you have rent to pay and spending to do. In return, the public could all refuse to buy the ipad 2, if we thougt the staff of that company weren't paid enough. But then, there'd be no company if people couldn't live on the wages paid by that company.

Subsidizing share holder ROI with tax payers money, by allowing people to claim tax pounds to top-up their wages is ridiculous.
Give some dignity back to those who work. stop the claims, stop the need to claim. Alternatively, let the companies feel the heat of not being able to recruit, if they don't pay high enough wages.

I'm not rich, I'm not sticking up for the rich. I'm sticking up for people to stand on their own two feet and not have to work [b]and[/b] claim.

So we get rid of the minimum wage AND in-work benefits, and rely on market forces to sort everything out?

You people are ****ing insane, seriously. 😕

Do I think we might be in a different situation had the Tories been in power when it happened? Yes. Do I think we'd be in a better situation?

No those weren't the questions, but of course you knew that. Are you a politician ?

Here are the questions again :

...is it all the fault of global financial crisis ?

Or is the global situation only relevant when there are bad news headlines and the Tories are in power ?

It seems to me that, in a globalised economy where low wages are the norm due to a vastly bigger employee base (also due in part to a constantly growing population), the "West" is no longer in the priveleged position of controlling the supply of commercial goods and enabling higher wages.

Companies will, of course, always seek to maximise profits and in today's global climate where moving abroad to pay less wage is always an option, this is a popular means to that end.

We can increase the supply of jobs, but not guarantee a higher wage base than elsewhere.

In the middle of all this, any government has to find a way of maximising the tax take whilst encouraging commercial activity and looking at what the available pot of tax pounds will buy.

Whatever happens, the money for public spending has to come from somewhere.

Taxing the rich more will not in itself provide enough to meet the public purse, so of course those earning less will have to be taxed.

The only way to ensure that the poorer pay less in tax is to reduce the number of things that taxes are having to be spent on.

What would YOU cut?

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/tories-target-ordinary-working-bastards-2014093091172 ]the mash[/url] seem to have it nailed.

You're a marxist Ernie, you know that it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development without revolution.

Please, marxist-lennist.......I ain't no trot. Which is precisely why I apply commonsense and aim for "immediate gains" for working people under existing conditions.

Huge gains in the interests of ordinary working people can be accomplished under existing conditions. And of course they have.

In return, the public could all refuse to buy the ipad 2, if we thougt the staff of that company weren't paid enough. But then, there'd be no company if people couldn't live on the wages paid by that company.

Think of the role the unions could play here! Instead of trying to overthrow the elected government of the day they could identify firms who pay shite wages and pick them off one by one - a formal picket and boycott of, for example, Argos. Would have them on their knees in days!

solo you seem quite divorced from reality

Accepting a job thats too low paid?
The economy is awash with underpaid jobs at the moment, hence the current productivity gap.
Theres plenty of other unemployed people to take those jobs if you decide to turn it down, not to mention getting any unemployment benefits terminated if you tried to reject one.
And the right wing obsession with stimulating the housing bubble driving up rent and house prices, thats a major reason that people are stuck in the working benefits trap.

not topping up salaries is great, but without raising the minimum wage you end up just creating an ever wider gap between rich and poor , channelling more people toward foodbanks etc.

[i]So we get rid of the minimum wage AND in-work benefits, and rely on [s]market forces[/s] [b] a Labour government to rob business and the rich[/b] to sort everything out?[/i]

Yeah, well we tried that. It hasn't worked out too well though.

Election next year make your vote count, throw the toys out of the pram

a Labour government to rob business and the rich to sort everything out?

Yeah, well we tried that. It hasn't worked out too well though.

What we've mostly tried out is Tory policies. The Tories have been in power more than any other party in the last 100 years.

So when a Labour government wasn't robbing business and the rich was everything hunky-dory ?

Anybody care to examine the global situation rather than focus on local class war rhetoric?

They don't have to close them, they could have put your council tax up instead

Not really. Most council funding is actually from central government, and any significant increase in council tax can only be approved via a local referendum.

Look at the horrifying dip in wages! It's during a Labour government...

Which then recovered, and was higher when they left office than it is now. So what's your point?

[i]Theres plenty of other unemployed people to take those jobs if you decide to turn it down, not to mention getting and unemployment benefits terminated if you tried to reject one.
[/i]

Oh, where have I been ? Probably on planet Zorg....
So.... there are more people than there are jobs. Hhmmm, how did that happen then ?

any significant increase in council tax can only be approved via a local referendum.

Jesus, direct democracy? woe betide the thought!

Surely if people want better services, they'll be happy to vote for higher taxes? Hasn't that been the refrain of the left for the last forty years?

So.. if UKIP is threatening to split the Tory vote, and Tories therefore have to move right, does this leave Labour space to move left?

Which then recovered, and was higher when they left office than it is now. So what's your point?

you can always find a graph to suit the point you are making.

[i]Anybody care to examine the global situation rather than focus on local class war rhetoric? [/i]
What, like the tracksuits always voting labour, cos that's how their family has always voted. Regardless of the fact that they're still wearing tracksuits.
😆

[i]What we've mostly tried out is Tory policies. The Tories have been in power more than any other party in the last 100 years.[/i]
Oh, Ok, it's silly hour now then.
In that case, I'm off.
🙂

Which then recovered, and was higher when they left office than it is now. So what's your point?

My point was that stats trotted out in a political campaigning context are often highly misleading. Just as the statement you quoted from me (that a Labour government presided over the biggest fall in real wages in recent history) didn't really bear close examination, statements of the kind I was initially responding to should be treated with the same degree of scepticism.

Solo - Member

Oh, Ok, it's silly hour now then.
In that case, I'm off.

Well it will save you having to answer the question. Apparently it's "silly" to ask a Tory supporter whether everything was fine under Tory governments.

My point was that stats trotted out in a political campaigning context are often highly misleading.

Well yes, but the suggestion that under this government we've had a long-term and significant depression of wages isn't misleading at all.

Surely if people want better services, they'll be happy to vote for higher taxes? Hasn't that been the refrain of the left for the last forty years?

Sadly, there are too many tories in the electorate for that too happen. 😉

No those weren't the questions, but of course you knew that. Are you a politician ?

No, are you? Because I already answered your question, but you're ignoring my answer because it's clearly not the one you're after.

The other bits you're complaining about weren't intended to be answers to your questions, feel free to ignore them as I'm trying to add a little bit of useful signal to this thread rather than just engage in pointless debates with you. Or if you like you could just trawl back through my old postings to attempt to find me claiming that Labour caused all our current problems rather than the financial crisis - have fun 🙂

Well yes, but the suggestion that under this government we've had a long-term and significant depression of wages isn't misleading at all.

That's a correct statement. The initial statement was that the current government had caused it. Which may be true, at least partially, but isn't proven by a random chart looking at wage levels over Parliamentary terms.

quite amusing (unless you really are a UKIP supporter with a hoover fetish)

https://soundcloud.com/andrewsparrow-1/boris-johnsons-gag-about-ukip

I already answered your question

No you didn't.

I'm trying to add a little bit of useful signal to this thread rather than just engage in pointless debates with you.

No that's not true either, if it was you wouldn't keep commenting on my posts.

That's a correct statement. The initial statement was that the current government had caused it. Which may be true, at least partially, but isn't proven by a random chart looking at wage levels over Parliamentary terms.

Any government is of course subject to global economic influence, but when we see a negative trend continuing for over four years, I think we would have to lay at largely at the door of no.11 Downing Street, regardless of what was the initial cause.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "just", ernie? 😉

Oh, and since you missed it, the answer was "yes, mostly"