[Closed] this Iain Duncan Smith petition, whos signed it?

Fro her Wiki entry:

Toynbee strongly supports state education, though partly educated two of her three children privately, leading to accusations of hypocrisy.

Accusations? Surely guilty as charged?

Wonder if she's mates with that well known 'Socialist' and champion of state education, Diane Abbot?

ernie_lynch - Member
That's a relief. I was worried from aracer's comments that by not reading Polly Toynbee's articles I might be missing out on something important.

You're just missing out on the opinions he thinks you have.

I can hardly believe it. I hope to one day get this neutral

Not even a "good try" this time, but no surprise at the personalisation from you or grum (but thanks for the link BTW). Play the ball guys - this one is big enough.

[b]Relatively Neutral[/b] - agree with OP on petition, recognise that the central issues are non-partisan (current system is overly complex, work is the best way out of poverty [for financial and non-financial reasons}, that current system has too many disincentives to achieve this therefore welfare needs reforming, that Labour is playing a smart political game etc

[b]Non-neutral[/b] - strivers v shirkers arguments (both also false), current reforms are only Tory inspired or unique to them, IDS is CMD/GO in disguise, IDS has no positive intentions or background analysis behind what he is proposing etc

So to coin a phrase, FTFY!

Perhaps more interesting is to see where people like Field and IDS actually disagree. So they both see the flaws in what we have, especially the fact that claimants can lose 90p for every extra £1 as benefits taper off. Even the new system only partially addresses this. But they differ fundamentally on means testing. Field rejects IDS' argument that universal credit is a step away from means testing. Furthermore he argues that "means testing...obviously gets extra money to hard-working families who earn low wages, but in doing so it rots the soul."

So which party representative would write the following:

The [XXX] can erect [b]no effective defence of the welfare system as it is currently organised[/b]. However, if it is the prime minister’s wish to transform the system and defend British taxpayers, he has to embark on a programme of welfare reform that [b]abolishes welfare as we have known it.[/b]

This week I will be introducing a new Welfare Bill. Its aim will be to recast our system to [b]counter our own homegrown entitlement culture[/b] and to deal with the [b]burgeoning costs of the National Health Service and benefits[/b], as a greater proportion of us age, retire and find it difficult to find employment. The bill will restore over time the contributory basis of welfare. All access to welfare and NHS care would be provided [b]on the basis of a contribution record...[/b]

...[b]newly arrived immigrants would be disqualified[/b]. It is a pity that the urgency of this reform should arise from the consequences of [b]EU expansion[/b] — welfare reform should be an ambition of the government in itself. The prime minister needs to send out the clearest message that while [b]Britain is open for business, it is not a soft touch.[/b]

UKIP, Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, Greens, A N Other.....?

You're just missing out on the opinions he thinks you have.

I wouldn't stoop so low as to suggest anybody on here shares opinions with Polly.

UKIP, Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, Greens, A N Other.....?

Well clearly not UKIP, Lib Dems or Greens as they appear to be in a position of power.

Yes, rhetorical question aracer, I admit!

As JY correctly points out, this is a "very complicated issue" and it is genuinely (IMO) interesting how different parties, and individuals within the same parties, position themselves on both the wider and narrower issues. You find odd bed-fellows and lots of apparent contradictions throughout.

No surprise in the answer as it comes from Frank Field's constituency page. Like IDS, I may not agree with everything he/they say, but would extend them the courtesy of respecting the fact that they and others (cross-parties) have worked hard and with good intention to seek answers to the problems of the current welfare system. For that they should be praised rather than vilified. Perhaps it is because they do the non-STW thing and step above party politics that leads them into falling out with their party hierarchies from time to time!

thm i am not sure IDS has broken his parties line on benefits but he is certainly fighting for his brief very well and i assume gets more freedom than others. I dont doubt he cares i just doubt whether he is effective or his right wing influenced views will bring about positive change. We dont have enough time to discuss Fields who certainly breaks party lines unlike any other politician I can think off [ well except Nick Clegg 😉 ]

the crux of the issues is this which no one can think is a good thing

the fact that claimants can lose 90p for every extra £1 as benefits taper off.

We all agree work gets people out of benefits but no one wants to discuss doing something about this. Punishing people who dont have this as an option is just punishing the poorest and most disadvantaged in your society. Without the jobs there is nothing they can do about it.
It makes little sense to only look at half the problem and try to find a solution that way. It is like [analogy stretch for aracer] having a bandage but not worrying about cleanliness when treating an infection - it might help but it is no cure.
Its is complex and it has no easy solution. Until there is work for all I see little point in doing this as it is mean spirited on the poorest. I bet if they voted in the numbers that pensioners do we would see better outcomes for them

My son is a hard working lad, he's a delivery driver at tesco. he dosent get a large amount each month and he is trying his best to support a 2 year old and his partner.She works 30 hours a week.
They were getting £230 a month working tax credit, which was a great help
My son worked 14 hours overtime over Xmas which took him over the threshold for working tax credits, without warning or tapering of the tax credits, they were stopped overnight.
There is no more overtime at the moment, so they are now £230 a month worse off, because he worked a bit of overtime for Xmas presents.
How can that be a fair system when two young people are both working hard to bring a chil up, both on minimum wage and they are penalised like that

Thanks for coming back on topic JY! The bit that we all seem to agree on is exactly the subject of Chapter 3 in the CSJ report that I copied the link from. But (genuine question) can you explain the argument about wages being too low?

I do not agree that 'no one wants to discuss doing something about it'. The media present this as punishing people who dont have an option because that makes good headlines. But that does not reflect the work on the factors that lie behind it or the huge amount of work that is being done on the topic. This is a massive area of current economic, political and social research.

Jobs are being created but the government mis-calculated on the relative pace at which private sector job creation would compensate for public sector job reductions. Nevertheless in 4Q12, private sector added 151k jobs while public sector lost 20k. For the full year, the public sector lost 117k and the private sector added 708k. So while job creation has slowed recently, it is not true to say that nothing is happening about jobs.

can you explain the argument about wages being too low?

I think , without discussing factors, that we can all agree no political party makes an issue about full employment so they all seem to accept "unemployment is a price worth paying". They may favour private over public but that is it. It is how much salt and vinegar you get on your chips not changing the dish [ aracer its catching ...... help me]
I dont agree as to how good the current situation is [ [some of ]it is better than before but that is not saying much tbh] but that is probably another topic

The ONS said that between October to December 2012, full-time employment was 378,000 lower than in the April-to-June quarter in 2008, the first quarter of the recession. But part-time employment was 572,000 higher compared with the same period.

You've made a significant leap there Junky

Due to the marginal withdrawal rates, Its possible under the benefits system for someone to be better off, or insignificantly worse off, working part time than full time compared with being on benefits - so in a number of cases, they choose to do so, and in the process have maintained a better work life balance, and in many cases a work life balance thats actually better for society (e. single parents working part time, but still able to spend time with their kids rather than throw them in after school clubs etc.

The ONS said that between October to December 2012, full-time employment was 378,000 lower than in the April-to-June quarter in 2008, the first quarter of the recession. But part-time employment was 572,000 higher compared with the same period.

Oh, that period before Christmas, when there's always a seasonal surge in the number of temporary and/or part-time jobs available. 🙄

Then factor in the reality that many employers are increasingly giving people only part time contracts (because it suits them, not their employees). and suddenly your cosy figures don't look quite so rosy. The likes of Tescos are employing [i]more[/i] people, but the reality is that there are increasing numbers of people having to rely on benefits because they aren'/t able to work sufficient hours. Tescos etc look good for employing 'more' people, but the reality is that the situation is actually worse for society.

All sorts of things can be claimed by using figures. It's the [i]reality[/i] of the situation that's a bit too difficult for many people to actually see.

You've made a significant leap there Junky

I have no issue rewarding people for being parents to their children and setting up the tax system to accommodate/ this. I am very nearly Tory on my pro family stance 😉
To get back to non party lines I dont mind grammar schools either as long as the alternative is a superb education based on ability/need- each according to their need and all that

thx1138 - Member
Oh, that period before Christmas, when there's always a seasonal surge in the number of temporary and/or part-time jobs available....Then factor in the reality that many employers are increasingly giving people only part time contracts (because it suits them, not their employees). and suddenly your cosy figures don't look quite so rosy.

Versus:

Office for National Statistics data released on Wednesday showed the number of people in work rose 131,000 in the three months to January, a slightly slower rate than seen recently. There were 590,000 more people in work than a year earlier.

In a mixed set of data,[b] the increase was driven by full-time employment[/b], up 195,000 on the previous quarter and 427,000 over the year. [b]The number of part-timers fell 64,000 in the quarter[/b].

What I mean, to put it very simplistically, is that in certain circumstances under the existing system, you can be as well off, or nearly as well off, working 16 hours as opposed to 37 hours - as the more you work, the more benefits you lose.

if you're losing 90p worth of benefits for every extra pound you earn in wages, then it provides a perverse incentive against working full time, however if you look at this another way, it can be utilised in a very positive manner, since it allows someone such as a single parent with kids to earn nearly as much as they would working full time, but still spend time with the kids.

Office for National Statistics data released on Wednesday showed the number of people in work rose 131,000 in the three months to January, a slightly slower rate than seen recently. [b]There were 590,000 more people in work than a year earlier[/b].

That's really impressive, should have full employment soon.

There have been various Labour bods on TV/radio over the last couple of days telling us that employment is decreasing. That seems to be contrary to the ONS stats, is there some selective stats usage going on or is someone fibbing ?

I assume that the population is growing faster than job creation - only thing I can think of at the moment.

Enforced contraception and culls of the elderly should help.

I assume that the population is growing faster than job creation

that plus

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9963012/900000-choose-to-come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html

so perhaps employment is growing slower than the pool of 'could be employed'

Easy mistake to make allthepiers? Replace the fact that the rate of employment growth is decreasing with employment is decreasing 😉 Type of innocent mistake politicians make all the time....deficit, debt!!!!! 😉

I could live on £56 a week, remember it's after housing costs, I couldn't travel anywhere except by foot/bike, I couldn't own a car. I couldn't sustain that long term as clothing costs etc would eventually kick in. But in the short term, ie 6 months I could.

thm googling your quote - it gives the FT and the opening para [ omitted by you] says

Recent strength in the UK labour market is showing signs of waning with the jobless total rising, employment growing more slowly and wages squeezed ever more fiercely.

Not exactly high praise from a paper from the FT which , iirc, is a bot to the right.
Also

The number of unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds was up 48,000 at 993,000, or 21.2 per cent of the workforce in that age group – the largest rise for 16 months.

Interesting that unemployment and employment are both rising. That is stats for you - the article explains why and it is largely an artefact of rising retirement age and reclassification form economically inactive - I assume reducing ESA claim increases on flow [ in real words removing many from long term sick has increased unemployment]

MIxed is the best anyone can say about this unless you compare it to what it claimed it would achieve in which case it is a[near] universal failure.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51f744fc-9146-11e2-b4c9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2PKV3hU9x

re decreasing i think there has been little change in the % of unemployed as percentage of working age but working age has increased for females recently

Gotcha!

True JY, pretty much what I was saying ie, rate of growth slowing and government predictions proved to be over optimistic. The point being?

Signed it. There are all scum but as an ex arms dealer he's worse

I read one factor in increasing youth unemployment is that unemployed adults are taking the types of jobs typically done by youngsters

The point being

There are all scum but as an ex arms dealer he's worse

You'd prefer it if he was still an arms dealer?

<apologies to Junkyard for not giving my opinion on whether I think the world would be a better place if IDS was still an arms dealer>

Teamhurtmore; your obsession with figures and statistics (which as I said, can be manipulated to present whatever version of the 'truth' that suits the user) betrays your lack of knowledge and experience of reality. Take your head out of your books, and have a look around you. For all your desire to support Tory actions, Britain is becoming increasingly poorer as a [i]society[/i]. That is something only the selfish, the foolish and/or those in denial will fail to see.

Thanks for the advice thx and apologies on all counts. It's tough being in a profession that requires a focus on facts rather than fiction. Perhaps I should become a journalist instead, then I can join in the fairy stories. Is that what experience of reality is all about? In the meantime, I bow to your far greater knowledge and experience. Now where's that book gone?

THM, Fred knows what it's like in the 'hood, don't go throwing numbers around maaaaan.

apologies to Junkyard for not giving my opinion on whether I think the world would be a better place if IDS was still an arms dealer

tbh i would apologise for the terrible inference you have [ comically??] drawn

I'd forgotten this was the new Fred. I always enjoyed his stuff in the past. New Fred's, new Zulus....it's all so confusing 😉

It's tough being in a profession that requires a focus on facts rather than fiction.

What's the saying now; 'Lies, damn lies, and statistics'. 😉

Sorry, but whilst you clearly have an extensive knowledge of economic matters, you do seem somewhat detached from the day to day reality of society. You use manipulated statistics to support claims of increasing employment, as of perhaps to suggest that things are on the up, when the reality is that increasing numbers of people are finding themselves in dire economic circumstances. Homelessness and child poverty are increasing, education is in decline, and we're in a nation that consumes more than it produces. Those are the real facts you need to be concerned with, not some manipulated statistics from a government department.

I'd forgotten this was the new Fred

Apparently it's 'NuFred'. Like the old one*, but different. 🙂

*What was the 'old' one like? I keep hearing about it, but have no knowledge of such a phenomenon.

I keep hearing about it, but have no knowledge of such a phenomenon.

😆

What was the 'old' one like?

Funnily enough, exactly the same as the new one.

Actually; Perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to judge. Teamhurtmore; care to enlighten us as to what your profession actually is?

I'm genuinely interested; you clearly have knowledge and experience in your particular field, beyond that of the majority of people on here, and there is a lot that is of interest in your posts. Which is more than can be said for others. I'm just curious as to your background and what drives your own ideologies.

thx1138 - Member

Teamhurtmore; your obsession with figures and statistics (which as I said, can be manipulated to present whatever version of the 'truth' that suits the user) betrays your lack of knowledge and experience of reality. Take your head out of your books, and have a look around you. For all your desire to support Tory actions, Britain is becoming increasingly poorer as a society. That is something only the selfish, the foolish and/or those in denial will fail to see.

[i]Loony leftie picks unmeasurable metric to measure things by[/i], shocker.
😛

Just face it; this country is worse off because of the people you voted in.
I'm not saying that the coalition are doing any good, but it seems like you're drastically looking for people to blame for the guilt of your past actions.
Am I close?
🙂
Labour have done far more damage to this country than any Tory government. Don't forget all this talk of cuts and austerity is because your lot went on a bender with an unprecedented amount of other people's money. 💡

Just face it; this country is worse off because of the people you voted in.

I didn't vote for them. Seems that some others on here may possibly have done.

it seems like you're drastically looking for people to blame for the guilt of your past actions. Am I close?

Nowhere near. that you've labelled me a 'Loony Leftie' shows just how far off you actually are.

Labour have done far more damage to this country than any Tory government

Now who's the 'Loony'? 😯

thx1138 - Member

I didn't vote for them.

Didn't vote Labour?
Ah, too young to vote.
It all makes sense now.
🙂

sbob - Member
Labour have done far more damage to this country than any Tory government. Don't forget all this talk of cuts and austerity is because your lot went on a bender with an unprecedented amount of other people's money.

Can't believe people are still buying this. Are Labour to blame for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, the US?

What impact did Labour's policies have on the sub-prime housing bubble in the US?

Didn't vote Labour?

Actually I did (for shame). You asked '[i]Just face it; this country is worse off because of the people you voted in.[/i]'. By which, you meant the Conservative Party. Which I did not vote for.

Ah, too young to vote.

Yes; in the days of Margaret Thatcher, I was too young to vote, so therefore cannot be held responsible for the state this country is now in, as this is a direct result of the damage done by her government. The Labour party, for all their sins, did at least improve things for most people in Britain; more employment, more education, better health care and a generally better standard of living for most people in the UK. If, as I suspect you are, you are referring to the global financial crisis when you talk about '[i]Labour have done far more damage to this country than any Tory government. Don't forget all this talk of cuts and austerity is because your lot went on a bender with an unprecedented amount of other people's money[/i]', then maybe teamhurtmore can come along and remind you that the global financial crisis was not in fact created by Labour, as you seem to be suggesting, but was in fact a [i]global[/i] crisis.

It all makes sense now.

But obviously not to you, sadly.

Thx, you are absolutely correct that we face desperate economic and social issues in the UK. We have no growth and little prospect of any for the foreseeable future due to the factors that caused it (excess leverage everywhere), the incorrect balance of economic policies of the previous and current governments and the dire situation among our business partners in Europe. This leads to severe social issues most notably in the young generation and income inequality (neither unique to the UK though). But bizarrely, it is the labour market where here have been some glimmers of positive news. That is not statistical manipulation, it is fact. Hence the debate you will have seen (BBC website (Stephanie Flanders), most broadsheets) of how can the labour market been relatively buoyant when there is no growth. Irony of ironies, perhaps it's is under a Tory, sorry Coalition, government that the rewards are going back to the workers in terms of lower output but more jobs (that's not strictly true either, but I will try it in my job application to the Daily Wail or The Torygraph as I am sure they will lap it up.)

Irony of ironies, perhaps it's is under a Tory, sorry Coalition, government that the rewards are going back to the workers in terms of lower output but more jobs (that's not strictly true either, but I will try it in my job application to the Daily Wail or The Torygraph as I am sure they will lap it up.)

The reality is though, that increasing numbers of people are having to work for less and less, as employers freeze or even cut wages. So, statistics say one thing, yet the facts of reality reveal a greater and wider truth.

I notice you've evaded (avoided?) answering my question as to your profession and background. 😉

it is the labour market where here have been some glimmers of positive news.

Can't believe people are still buying this. Are Labour to blame for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, the US?

What impact did Labour's policies have on the sub-prime housing bubble in the US?

Can't believe people are still buying this. Are [s]Labour[/s] The Tories to blame for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, the US?

What impact did [s]Labour's[/s] The Tories policies have on the [s]sub-prime housing bubble in the US?[/s] Eurozone?

HTH! Maybe worth considering next time you're telling us how Evil Tory austerity is preventing recovery...

Sorry, I didn't see anyone suggesting the tories are responsible for those things some people are accusing Labour of.

Maybe worth considering next time you're telling us how Evil Tory austerity is preventing recovery...

So in what way is it creating a better future for all?

rattrap - Member
Can't believe people are still buying this. Are Labour The Tories to blame for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, the US?
What impact did Labour's The Tories policies have on the sub-prime housing bubble in the US? Eurozone?

HTH!

Not at all. What are you talking about?

rattrap - Member
Maybe worth considering next time you're telling us how Evil Tory austerity is preventing recovery...

Even with the stealth edit it doesn't work.

So Labour aren't to blame for their unprecendented spunkfest of money that wasn't theirs?

Interesting concept, but not sure I'm with you on that one.

I can't stand Cameron, but the deep seated tory hatred on here is so strong people are actually defending the last government? 😕

😆

All Labour managed to do was go on a returnless spending spree and, as is proof from the many threads on here, convince everyone they are entitled to whatever they want without working for it.

As an example look at the thread discussing speed cameras and driver training.
Lots of posters wanting safer roads but only one actually taking the responsibility for themselves and looking into [b]proven[/b] training.
Everyone else just dismissed it and called for changes in other people's behavior.
That's what "vote for us, have a laptop" Labour have reduced this country to.
Well done.
🙂

I'm afraid I'll have to leave you to have the last word (I'm sure you won't mind) as I don't want to risk getting banned again.

Play nicely kids. 🙂

Too many smileys.

Oh and btw rattrap, that 838,000 figure re ESA that you were so gleeful about earlier?

[url= http://lartsocial.org/shapps ]You might want to look into claims like that in the future[/url]

Thus to claim, as Mr Shapps seems to have done, that everyone who leaves ESA before assessment is leaving in order to avoid the assessment is patently inaccurate.It is not just that he has no evidence to back up his claim. There is evidence, and it shows he is wrong. He should issue a correction and apology.

I was also surprised that it came from Shapps rather than the DWP, but it makes sense:

Grant Shapps is of course the Conservative party chairman, not the housing minister. [b]That means that his inaccurate claims were made in a party political role, so they are not subject to the rules governing ministerial use of statistics[/b], although this would presumably be the case were his claims to be repeated by a minister.

Baited breath.

Yes; in the days of Margaret Thatcher, I was too young to vote, so therefore cannot be held responsible for the state this country is now in, as this is a direct result of the damage done by her government.

I invoke Dibnah's rule - STW equivalent of Godwin's law. Thread closed.

sbob - Member
As an example look at the thread discussing speed cameras and driver training.
Lots of posters wanting safer roads but only one actually taking the responsibility for themselves and looking into proven training.

Wow, ever so slightly revisionist on that as well. At least you're consistent.

 

ratty if anyone claims that the Tories caused the current international climate economically and it is all their fault then fair point - I dont recall a lefty ever doing this though there are plenty of right wingers still blaming labour [ with rambling explanations of laptops and speed cameras 😯 ] for an issue that started in america with a sub prime collapse. In fact their spending policies were so ace the Tories agreed to match them prior to the sub prime collapse and it requires putting politics in front of the facts.
A reasonable case can be put forward that the euro issues have hampered recovery and that any govt would be facing difficulties. That said I think we can judge them on whether the medicine is working - be that labours response or the coalition now.

IDS has spent years getting to grips with the benefits system and that is more than anyone in New Labour ever did apart from wotisname who Blair promptly dropped like a hot potato.

Because we would like benefits to be generous doesn't mean we can afford it. The country is almost bust, the cash aint there. The sooner we all face up to it and start working a bit harder and expecting a bit less from the state the better. Greece or Germany? Which is best? Which would you prefer?

sbob - Member

So Labour aren't to blame for their unprecendented spunkfest of money that wasn't theirs?

Interesting concept, but not sure I'm with you on that one.

I can't stand Cameron, but the deep seated tory hatred on here is so strong people are actually defending the last government?

All Labour managed to do was go on a returnless spending spree

Well I'm not surprised that you can't stand the Cameron then ....... he [i][u]completely[/u][/i] supported Labours's "spending spree" !!!

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html ]Tories vow to match Labour spending[/url]

[b][i]"The Conservatives sought last night to destroy Labour claims that they would cut public services by issuing a formal pledge to match Gordon Brown’s spending plans"[/i][/b]

I think it's your deep seated hatred of Labour sbob, which makes you apparently oblivious to this indisputable fact.

I invoke Dibnah's rule - STW equivalent of Godwin's law. Thread closed.

Ah, 'Fred'.

Not sure what a steam-loving Boltonian with a penchant for destroying chimneys has to do with me though. 😕

Oh and btw rattrap, that 838,000 figure re ESA that you were so gleeful about earlier?

You might want to look into claims like that in the future

Oof. 😮

The country is almost bust, the cash aint there

Nonsense. The country is a very wealthy one; the cash is in the pockets of far too few. It's all about fair and equal redistribution of that wealth which [b]the country as a whole[/b] generates, not just the few.

I do have a deep seated hatred of Labour, that's true.
The difference is, that it doesn't stop me feeling hatred towards CMD.

(I suspect a "Scanners" style explosion of mind at that concept!)

I wouldn't say I was happy, but I was content with the last Conservative government.
The country was doing well, for those of you that don't remember it.

🙂

thx1138 - Member

Nonsense. The country is a very wealthy one; the cash is in the pockets of far too few. It's all about fair and equal redistribution of that wealth

I'll wager a bike that you're much better off than me, if you'd like to redistribute some wealth I would happily accept a bike. 🙂

if anyone claims that the Tories caused the current international climate economically and it is all their fault then fair point - I dont recall a lefty ever doing this

Does suggesting the Tories "turned a recovery into the longest double dip recession" not count? Or are you suggesting that's nothing to do with the international situation?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19803864

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday ]Black Wednesday[/url]

❓

I'll wager a bike that you're much better off than me, if you'd like to redistribute some wealth I would happily accept a bike.

No problem. There's an old one in the cellar that you can gladly have.

It lacks various parts, doesn't go and I doubt the tyres and brake blocks are any good, but hey; your tory optimism will surely transcend such mere trifles. All it needs is some good old fashioned hard work put into it, to make it a going concern once more.

I do have a deep seated hatred of Labour, that's true.

Is why you didn't appear to know that far from criticising or condemning the last Labour government for their "spending spree", the Tories pledged to the British people that they would match it penny for penny?

wealth which the country as a whole generates

Istill don't get this part of it, where, in between gawping at tabloids, eating scotch eggs and twittering about those things does the UK actually generate any real wealth? Especially as any companies that generate profits seem to be come inexplicably un-British come tax day?

Black Wednesday

You're introducing that as another example of Germany screwing it up for us?

Weapons

Weapons

You see, IDS isn't all bad.

Does suggesting the Tories "turned a recovery into the longest double dip recession" not count? Or are you suggesting that's nothing to do with the international situation

i listened to half of it it was all i could manage

Well done - I got as far as where he provided that quote - the lengths I got to in the interest of research.

ernie_lynch - Member

Is why you didn't appear to know that far from criticising or condemning the last Labour government for their "spending spree", the Tories pledged to the British people that they would match it penny for penny?

You seem to be imagining that I'm a fan of the current Tory party.
I'm not. 🙂

I meant on stw

I am going to go out on a limb and point out that its a double dip recession and that perhaps the policies of the current govt are to blame for this

sbob - Member

You seem to be imagining that I'm a fan of the current Tory party.
I'm not.

I am not imagining anything. I am however very aware that you launched into a ranting tirade concerning the last Labour government's alleged "spending spree", whilst not uttering one single word of criticism against the Tories for pledging to match Labour's spending penny for penny.

Why would you do that ?

ernie_lynch - Member

Why would you do that?

Restoring equilibrium, but then I've already mentioned that, and my dislike for CMD, and the coalition. 🙂

sbob - Member
I wouldn't say I was happy, but I was content with the last Conservative government.
The country was doing well, for those of you that don't remember it.

is that sarcasm ?

I'll wager a bike that you're much better off than me, if you'd like to redistribute some wealth I would happily accept a bike.

Done correctly (no idea what that would entail) creating a more equal distribution of wealth would make 90% of the population better off. 9% would lose a bit, and 1% would get hammered where the sun don't shine.

Restoring equilibrium

But you're not are you. All you are doing is directing all your hatred against Labour's spending policy, whilst completely ignoring the fact that it was also the Tories identical spending policy.

I don't call that 'restoring the equilibrium'. I call it straightforward dishonesty.

Haven't read the previous (got lost in the left right banter) so sorry if this has been answered already.

£50 + what?

Is housing paid for?

Dont mean to come across the wrongly but having never claimed anything I don't know the system. I have know people who by their own admission milk the system and "outwards looking in" they seemed to have everything paid for and got money to live on as well. Is this £50 the living allowance?

IDS has spent years getting to grips with the benefits system

it seems i was debating with hora and appealing for the same thing as here not blaming labour[past govt] for everything.

I am going to go out on a limb and point out that its a double dip recession and that [b]perhaps the policies[/b] of the current govt are to blame for this rather than the last one or else it is [ following this approach] still Thatchers fault

Does suggesting the Tories "turned a recovery into the longest double dip recession" not count? Or are you suggesting that's nothing to do with the international situation?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19803864

Well, some fairly well informed people, and not just on the left, have roundly criticised the government's strategy for dealing with the financial crisis, and some other countries are doing quite a lot better than us.

A new and influential voice has also raised concerns over the UK government’s economic policy and a recent budget promise that the state would underwrite some new mortgages. Professor Larry Summers, a former US Treasury Secretary, ex-chief of the World Bank and an advisor to no less than three US Presidents said that the UK economic policy was “illogical”. Speaking on the BBC’s Newsnight Programme, Professor Summers remarked:

"I must say as an outside observer I have had some difficulty following the logic of British policy, I would have supposed - and it's something that's taught in basic finance text books - I would have thought a loan guarantee is more or less the same thing as a loan. Both expose tax payers to risk of loss. [b]Britain has been a powerful and empirical test of the efficacy of determined, resolute austerity. The results so far have not been encouraging to advocates of that strategy. The results so far have suggested that in line with predictions that austerity has led to reductions in demand which has led to reductions in output, to an even greater extent than pessimists predicted."[/b]

Pretty sure Larry Summers isn't a loony lefty or New Labour supporter.

http://www.dailyforex.com/forex-fundamental-analysis/2013/03/UK-Economic-Policy-Criticised/19399

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/4854002/Next-boss-Lord-Wolfson-criticises-Government-economic-policy.html

It certainly a more convincing claim to say the Tories have caused a double-dip recession than 'New Labour started a worldwide financial crisis and everything would be fine if the Tories had been in charge'.

Even a report commissioned by the government and conducted by Michael Heseltine seems to agree that their strategy is failing.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/31/uk-britain-heseltine-economy-idUKBRE89U03Y20121031