Quote:

 

Iain Duncan Smith’s disclosure that the teething problems have been resolved and that the Universal Credits system will be rolled out across the country ahead of the election was momentous. Many critics, not just on the Left, cheerfully predicted that Mr Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms would fail. They are now irreversible, and as a result Mr Cameron’s Coalition will be able to claim a place among Britain’s great reforming governments.

Affa

Nov 4 2014, 10:19 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 4 2014, 05:25 PM

Paul will always be in support of any welfare strategy which robs Peter to pay Paul, however unjust it may be on Peter. Should Peter have the temerity to object then Paul and all his friends will froth at the mouth in moral outrage at the excessive greed and outrageous injustice of Peter actually suggesting he should have a say in the matter. Afterall as all the Pauls in our society know, the Peters of this world are there for the sole purpose of supporting them.

But if Peter wasn't busy ripping Paul off, paying him below subsistence wages, Paul wouldn't need look to Peter to give more support.

It really is about a more effective distribution of wealth. One that actually improves the lot of everyone, including those at the top.

Question - which country has the widest wealth gap. the UK, or Brazil?
i know the answer, and that will help you guess correctly ........ it wasn't always so, and is getting worse.

Major Sinic

Nov 5 2014, 01:18 PM

Tigger

Nov 4 2014, 10:42 PM

Affa

Nov 4 2014, 10:19 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 4 2014, 05:25 PM

Paul will always be in support of any welfare strategy which robs Peter to pay Paul, however unjust it may be on Peter. Should Peter have the temerity to object then Paul and all his friends will froth at the mouth in moral outrage at the excessive greed and outrageous injustice of Peter actually suggesting he should have a say in the matter. Afterall as all the Pauls in our society know, the Peters of this world are there for the sole purpose of supporting them.

But if Peter wasn't busy ripping Paul off, paying him below subsistence wages, Paul wouldn't need look to Peter to give more support.

It really is about a more effective distribution of wealth. One that actually improves the lot of everyone, including those at the top.

Question - which country has the widest wealth gap. the UK, or Brazil?
i know the answer, and that will help you guess correctly ........ it wasn't always so, and is getting worse.

And here is another little snippet, UK listed firms issued the highest number of profit warnings this summer, 69 in total, and the highest since the crash of 08, looking through the list you can see several businesses that have held down wages and embraced statistical tricks like zero hours, what is happening is that poorer workers who of course are also consumers are spending less of their diminished wages with these companies, but are they bright or honest enough to join the dots here or do we get the usual downward spiral?

I am not sure that the number of public company profit warnings is that significant. To draw a true comparison you also need to take into account the total number of quoted companies on a given exchange and the extent of corporate governance. Bearing in mind the issues relating to our banks, you may not agree with what I am about to say, but the UK has one of the most trusted systems of corporate governance in the G20.

However my main point is to confirm an area of agreement. Zero hour contracts are an employment abomination which drive a coach and four through employment law which, while not perfect by any means, still contributes to a working relationship between employee and employer. I should like to see them replaced with a minimum paid hours contract based on at least either a minimum eight consecutive hours work per week (ie a minimum of one full day including paid breaks) or sixteen hours per week with a mimimum of four hours in any one day. I would also welcome a gradual move toward the concept of a living wage rather than a minimum wage.

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 12:16 PM

Tytoalba

Nov 5 2014, 11:03 AM

RJD

Oct 31 2014, 03:05 PM

ACH1967

Oct 31 2014, 11:28 AM

Fair point but is the idea that people are "casting their problems on society" really a significant number of people or have we just been nudged into thinking that so it is easier for the Government to make the lot of the poorer considerably worse. I suspect the latter because I beleive that the major increases in the welfare budget are down to:

1 Housing Benefit (profiteering by renters or supply and demand issues - either way somehting that could and should be addressed and his far less harmful than making people poorer)

2 Tax Credits (profiteering by employers or inevitable affect of globalisation). This can be addressed if it is the former but is really tricky if it is the latter.

I have been following this general issue for quite some time now. I started out from roughly where you are but having read and dug around I find that the figures don't support that position. Basically I was misinformed and being conned.

You are free to put up your analysis with supporting information for scrutiny. That said I believe that your assumption that there is some conspiracy to grind the Poor into the dust is pure balderdash, why should anyone do that when there is no juice in that lemon. The truth is that the legions of excessive labour of the unskilled variety is a massive on going problem for which there appears no obvious political solution. Why we should increase their ranks by dumbing down State education and/or importing more from elsewhere defies logic.

One of the problems the country faces is how to fund everything that has been built into the social service system by governments, that we can no longer continue to fund at the present levels.

I look at free TV licences, heating allowance and free travel for the elderly, many of whom do not need it but would squeal if it were removed ,or based entirly on need,.. It applies across the board to all levels of the community, who have had their expectations raised too high and the assistance given at too high a level for the need, depriving the more pressing cases of the need they truly require,and expect the generosity to continue for ever, and in ever increasing amounts.
There is no doubt that cuts can be made, and have been made, to save taxpayers money for other things without causeng real hardship to anyone.

We all need to budget according to our means , and that includes the government, but we know from these boards that every practical step meets with oppositin and claims of hard heartedness, even ones of cruelty when it is nothing of the kind. There may be one or two cases which are the exception not the norm to emphasise the claims, but if they were as general as claimed then we would have non stop reporting of them, and we dont..

What justification is there for people like myself ~60% in receipt to receive the WFA or free Bus Passes etc? None that I can see. Scrap them and use the money wisely.

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 04:01 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 5 2014, 01:18 PM

Tigger

Nov 4 2014, 10:42 PM

Affa

Nov 4 2014, 10:19 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

And here is another little snippet, UK listed firms issued the highest number of profit warnings this summer, 69 in total, and the highest since the crash of 08, looking through the list you can see several businesses that have held down wages and embraced statistical tricks like zero hours, what is happening is that poorer workers who of course are also consumers are spending less of their diminished wages with these companies, but are they bright or honest enough to join the dots here or do we get the usual downward spiral?

I am not sure that the number of public company profit warnings is that significant. To draw a true comparison you also need to take into account the total number of quoted companies on a given exchange and the extent of corporate governance. Bearing in mind the issues relating to our banks, you may not agree with what I am about to say, but the UK has one of the most trusted systems of corporate governance in the G20.

However my main point is to confirm an area of agreement. Zero hour contracts are an employment abomination which drive a coach and four through employment law which, while not perfect by any means, still contributes to a working relationship between employee and employer. I should like to see them replaced with a minimum paid hours contract based on at least either a minimum eight consecutive hours work per week (ie a minimum of one full day including paid breaks) or sixteen hours per week with a mimimum of four hours in any one day. I would also welcome a gradual move toward the concept of a living wage rather than a minimum wage.

Trust is important and that is why London dominates the financial services sector.
If you impose a uniform living wage, outside of London, how many more jobs will be driven out of the UK? The Low Pay Board (whatever it is now called) rejected Osborne's recent claim for a large increase in the NMW because they believed it would destroy jobs. I suspect that the only viable way forward will be with negative income taxes, but these also should recognise the regional variations in living costs.

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 08:57 AM

Tigger

Nov 4 2014, 10:10 PM

RJD

Nov 1 2014, 06:33 AM

Affa

Oct 31 2014, 08:14 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Problem is that we have tried this and the State is not a good supplier of anything, it is fat, lazy and flatulence and as a consequence many are driven to avoid seeing, what they believe, is their hard earned wasted. Yes the State can do a lot more with the resources it already has, including the NHS, so best bully them into doing such.

What about the armed forces are they totally inept?

How about the government getting involved in the development of jet engines, supersonic aircraft, radar development and nuclear energy,all projects that require a little bit more commitment that the average here today gone tomorrow shareholder could put up with.

Silly to mention armed forces because for political reasons we would never privatise these and if you read recent comments from within you would find that it is claimed that the Generals were inept when agreeing to send forces to Afgahnistan. Do you only read Satirical sarcastic mags aimed at students?

Would you also like to put up a list of all the past projects supported by the State that were flushed down the Crapper? Start with MOD under the last lot.

Major Sinic

Nov 5 2014, 05:58 PM

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 04:01 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 5 2014, 01:18 PM

Tigger

Nov 4 2014, 10:42 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I am not sure that the number of public company profit warnings is that significant. To draw a true comparison you also need to take into account the total number of quoted companies on a given exchange and the extent of corporate governance. Bearing in mind the issues relating to our banks, you may not agree with what I am about to say, but the UK has one of the most trusted systems of corporate governance in the G20.

However my main point is to confirm an area of agreement. Zero hour contracts are an employment abomination which drive a coach and four through employment law which, while not perfect by any means, still contributes to a working relationship between employee and employer. I should like to see them replaced with a minimum paid hours contract based on at least either a minimum eight consecutive hours work per week (ie a minimum of one full day including paid breaks) or sixteen hours per week with a mimimum of four hours in any one day. I would also welcome a gradual move toward the concept of a living wage rather than a minimum wage.

Trust is important and that is why London dominates the financial services sector.
If you impose a uniform living wage, outside of London, how many more jobs will be driven out of the UK? The Low Pay Board (whatever it is now called) rejected Osborne's recent claim for a large increase in the NMW because they believed it would destroy jobs. I suspect that the only viable way forward will be with negative income taxes, but these also should recognise the regional variations in living costs.

But without a living wage being the minimum payable, the taxpayer will continue to subsidise low wages with benefits. I would like to see the lower paid earn sufficient that they do not need handouts in addition. Surely negative income tax is in reality no different from benefits? I do take your point that a minimum living wage in London would be like manna from heaven in other regions of Britain. A minimum living wage should certainly need to be calculated on a regional basis.

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 04:11 PM

Difficult that one as the State contracted with individuals against a payment now to provide a pension later. I would like to see compulsory contributions to private pensions for all those employed and would not object to the State providing a subsidy to cover necessary minimum contributions for those unable to provide such themselves. At this time it would be foolish for anyone to put his old age fully in the hands of the State. Our national debt, cost of running the State and demographics indicate caution.

Tytoalba

Nov 5 2014, 11:03 AM

We all need to budget according to our means , .................

......... and that includes the government, but we know from these boards that every practical step meets with oppositin and claims of hard heartedness, even ones of cruelty when it is nothing of the kind. There may be one or two cases which are the exception not the norm to emphasise the claims, but if they were as general as claimed then we would have non stop reporting of them, and we dont..

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 04:11 PM

ACH: One of the largest parts of the welfare budget, by far, is pensions. caution.

Tigger

Nov 5 2014, 08:22 PM

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 08:57 AM

Tigger

Nov 4 2014, 10:10 PM

RJD

Nov 1 2014, 06:33 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

What about the armed forces are they totally inept?

How about the government getting involved in the development of jet engines, supersonic aircraft, radar development and nuclear energy,all projects that require a little bit more commitment that the average here today gone tomorrow shareholder could put up with.

Silly to mention armed forces because for political reasons we would never privatise these and if you read recent comments from within you would find that it is claimed that the Generals were inept when agreeing to send forces to Afgahnistan. Do you only read Satirical sarcastic mags aimed at students?

Would you also like to put up a list of all the past projects supported by the State that were flushed down the Crapper? Start with MOD under the last lot.

Not silly to mention the armed forces as you claimed everything the state touches is damaged.

And I see you have no answer whatsoever to the four other things I mentioned in my post, is that because they are completely true?

Answers on the back of an 80's copy of the Sun please.

Affa

Nov 5 2014, 10:10 PM

Tytoalba

Nov 5 2014, 11:03 AM

We all need to budget according to our means , .................

......... and that includes the government, but we know from these boards that every practical step meets with oppositin and claims of hard heartedness, even ones of cruelty when it is nothing of the kind. There may be one or two cases which are the exception not the norm to emphasise the claims, but if they were as general as claimed then we would have non stop reporting of them, and we dont..

When will you start to see what is real, and stop believing the rhetoric that denies it?
The UK is one of the worlds leading economies, richest countries, most advanced civilisations. If the UK cannot afford to provide a Welfare system that removes extreme poverty from its shores, no country can. Yet most all do.
It is political dogma that determines affordability, not the purse (or rather wealth)!
That is the dogma you repeat, and I am in no doubt you truly believe.
I do not believe it.

You have read how I accuse the establishment of exaggerating the debt crisis - to justify austerity measures imo.
We can do the same with immigration - the rhetoric always is tailored for effect, to create a reaction, to influence public opinion.
EU..... the same.

We are made to look gullible, and so are treated as such.

Tigger

Nov 5 2014, 08:32 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 5 2014, 05:58 PM

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 04:01 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 5 2014, 01:18 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Trust is important and that is why London dominates the financial services sector.
If you impose a uniform living wage, outside of London, how many more jobs will be driven out of the UK? The Low Pay Board (whatever it is now called) rejected Osborne's recent claim for a large increase in the NMW because they believed it would destroy jobs. I suspect that the only viable way forward will be with negative income taxes, but these also should recognise the regional variations in living costs.

But without a living wage being the minimum payable, the taxpayer will continue to subsidise low wages with benefits. I would like to see the lower paid earn sufficient that they do not need handouts in addition. Surely negative income tax is in reality no different from benefits? I do take your point that a minimum living wage in London would be like manna from heaven in other regions of Britain. A minimum living wage should certainly need to be calculated on a regional basis.

How about this then? And I realise that what I am saying is tantamount to kiddy fiddling to the better off.

Allow asset prices to drop to a level that the real economy of goods and services can afford? This especially means housing and land prices which do nothing apart from just sitting there looking pretty and of course increase the cost of EVERYTHING else, I see the shills in the City are getting a bit jittery that Europe might go the deflation route and let a proper correction take place, it will be painful but probably not as painful as the when the props and joists under our economy eventually collapse under the sheer weight of of all that cheap money.

Affa

Nov 5 2014, 10:10 PM

Tytoalba

Nov 5 2014, 11:03 AM

We all need to budget according to our means , .................

......... and that includes the government, but we know from these boards that every practical step meets with oppositin and claims of hard heartedness, even ones of cruelty when it is nothing of the kind. There may be one or two cases which are the exception not the norm to emphasise the claims, but if they were as general as claimed then we would have non stop reporting of them, and we dont..

When will you start to see what is real, and stop believing the rhetoric that denies it?
The UK is one of the worlds leading economies, richest countries, most advanced civilisations. If the UK cannot afford to provide a Welfare system that removes extreme poverty from its shores, no country can. Yet most all do.
It is political dogma that determines affordability, not the purse (or rather wealth)!
That is the dogma you repeat, and I am in no doubt you truly believe.
I do not believe it.

You have read how I accuse the establishment of exaggerating the debt crisis - to justify austerity measures imo.
We can do the same with immigration - the rhetoric always is tailored for effect, to create a reaction, to influence public opinion.
EU..... the same.

We are made to look gullible, and so are treated as such.

ACH1967

Nov 6 2014, 08:54 AM

Tigger

Nov 5 2014, 08:32 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 5 2014, 05:58 PM

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 04:01 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

But without a living wage being the minimum payable, the taxpayer will continue to subsidise low wages with benefits. I would like to see the lower paid earn sufficient that they do not need handouts in addition. Surely negative income tax is in reality no different from benefits? I do take your point that a minimum living wage in London would be like manna from heaven in other regions of Britain. A minimum living wage should certainly need to be calculated on a regional basis.

How about this then? And I realise that what I am saying is tantamount to kiddy fiddling to the better off.

Allow asset prices to drop to a level that the real economy of goods and services can afford? This especially means housing and land prices which do nothing apart from just sitting there looking pretty and of course increase the cost of EVERYTHING else, I see the shills in the City are getting a bit jittery that Europe might go the deflation route and let a proper correction take place, it will be painful but probably not as painful as the when the props and joists under our economy eventually collapse under the sheer weight of of all that cheap money.

Could you explain to me how assett prices are propped up again as I have forgotten.

RJD

Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM

Quote:

 

Iain Duncan Smith’s disclosure that the teething problems have been resolved and that the Universal Credits system will be rolled out across the country ahead of the election was momentous. Many critics, not just on the Left, cheerfully predicted that Mr Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms would fail. They are now irreversible, and as a result Mr Cameron’s Coalition will be able to claim a place among Britain’s great reforming governments.

Well considered the claims made in the lefty Press, bloggers and here one would think he has not a snowball in Hell's chance of achieving that objective. We will see if he meets his milestone, but he is correct in one claim and that is no future Gov. is going to unpick this system and as a consequence he will be able to claim he inflicted the reform welcomed by the vast majority, the next step for a new Gov. must be to make further inroads against those barriers to making work always a first choice.

ACH1967

Nov 6 2014, 08:53 AM

I have read your opinion that we shoudln't be in auterity and that it is some kind of myth. The thing is I don't really understand it. Would you mind explaining it to me again?

RJD

Nov 6 2014, 08:15 AM

Tigger

Nov 5 2014, 08:22 PM

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 08:57 AM

Tigger

Nov 4 2014, 10:10 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Silly to mention armed forces because for political reasons we would never privatise these and if you read recent comments from within you would find that it is claimed that the Generals were inept when agreeing to send forces to Afgahnistan. Do you only read Satirical sarcastic mags aimed at students?

Would you also like to put up a list of all the past projects supported by the State that were flushed down the Crapper? Start with MOD under the last lot.

Not silly to mention the armed forces as you claimed everything the state touches is damaged.

And I see you have no answer whatsoever to the four other things I mentioned in my post, is that because they are completely true?

Answers on the back of an 80's copy of the Sun please.

I do not have sufficient time left to waste with you. You are beyond hope, the nasty bitter streak in you runs far too deep and distorts your thinking. You are just another sad lost cause.

RJD

Nov 6 2014, 09:40 AM

ACH1967

Nov 6 2014, 08:54 AM

Tigger

Nov 5 2014, 08:32 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 5 2014, 05:58 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

How about this then? And I realise that what I am saying is tantamount to kiddy fiddling to the better off.

Allow asset prices to drop to a level that the real economy of goods and services can afford? This especially means housing and land prices which do nothing apart from just sitting there looking pretty and of course increase the cost of EVERYTHING else, I see the shills in the City are getting a bit jittery that Europe might go the deflation route and let a proper correction take place, it will be painful but probably not as painful as the when the props and joists under our economy eventually collapse under the sheer weight of of all that cheap money.

Could you explain to me how assett prices are propped up again as I have forgotten.

Forgotten or purposefully ignore reality?

Affa

Nov 6 2014, 12:16 PM

ACH1967

Nov 6 2014, 08:53 AM

I have read your opinion that we shoudln't be in auterity and that it is some kind of myth. The thing is I don't really understand it. Would you mind explaining it to me again?

It is only difficult to understand if you are not open minded. When everybody and their grandmother declare a debt crisis, i.e. owing more money than they have in assets and are unable to meet creditors expectations, there is this political determination that spending must be cut, paired to the bone.
What I do not see is any indication of who everybody is in debt to. Creditors ???????
£trillions, $trillions, of debt owed to some unknown entity that, if we are to believe these politicians are being honest, has enough wealth to own and control the world.
And I am not being facetious here! There really must be this wealthy entity that can dictate how governments behave, how the global economy performs ..... or our government is lying to us. Or both!

As of now the UK government is spending (according to the Treasury) £52bn a year in interest repayments - more than the defence budget. Who to?

I conclude that in a round-about way we are paying ourselves, the UK being the centre of Global finance, is probably the major recipient of these interest repayments. I know that the huge debt the US declared in 2009 their overseas debts were predominantly to the UK Financial Sector and amounted to MORE that the total UK debt.

Plus Austerity measures alone cannot resolve the deficit situation as Osborne stated it would.
Austerity measures cut off growth, and without growth/investment there is n recovery.

The next explanation you will require is "why would our government (any) do this"?

ACH1967

Nov 6 2014, 08:54 AM

Tigger

Nov 5 2014, 08:32 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 5 2014, 05:58 PM

RJD

Nov 5 2014, 04:01 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

But without a living wage being the minimum payable, the taxpayer will continue to subsidise low wages with benefits. I would like to see the lower paid earn sufficient that they do not need handouts in addition. Surely negative income tax is in reality no different from benefits? I do take your point that a minimum living wage in London would be like manna from heaven in other regions of Britain. A minimum living wage should certainly need to be calculated on a regional basis.

How about this then? And I realise that what I am saying is tantamount to kiddy fiddling to the better off.

Allow asset prices to drop to a level that the real economy of goods and services can afford? This especially means housing and land prices which do nothing apart from just sitting there looking pretty and of course increase the cost of EVERYTHING else, I see the shills in the City are getting a bit jittery that Europe might go the deflation route and let a proper correction take place, it will be painful but probably not as painful as the when the props and joists under our economy eventually collapse under the sheer weight of of all that cheap money.

Could you explain to me how assett prices are propped up again as I have forgotten.

RJD

Nov 6 2014, 09:39 AM

I am afraid you do not believe it because you bury your head in the sand. It is true the State borrows money, has to pay interest for such a luxury and as a consequence is issued a credit rating accordingly. It is true that what we purchase from the USA does have to be paid in $US. You seem to wish to inhabit some fictional World where when the State requires funds it can just print them. If this were true then there would be no need for taxes or borrowings. Britain cannot feed itself and it cannot live without imports and as a consequence the value of £Sterling wrt $US or Euro is important. I really do not understand how you are able to convince yourself that the national debt is a fiction created by the State in order to control the masses. You must live in Roswell.

RJD

Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM

Quote:

 

Iain Duncan Smith’s disclosure that the teething problems have been resolved and that the Universal Credits system will be rolled out across the country ahead of the election was momentous. Many critics, not just on the Left, cheerfully predicted that Mr Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms would fail. They are now irreversible, and as a result Mr Cameron’s Coalition will be able to claim a place among Britain’s great reforming governments.

Well considered the claims made in the lefty Press, bloggers and here one would think he has not a snowball in Hell's chance of achieving that objective. We will see if he meets his milestone, but he is correct in one claim and that is no future Gov. is going to unpick this system and as a consequence he will be able to claim he inflicted the reform welcomed by the vast majority, the next step for a new Gov. must be to make further inroads against those barriers to making work always a first choice.

Affa

Nov 6 2014, 12:38 PM

RJD

Nov 6 2014, 09:39 AM

I am afraid you do not believe it because you bury your head in the sand. It is true the State borrows money, has to pay interest for such a luxury and as a consequence is issued a credit rating accordingly. It is true that what we purchase from the USA does have to be paid in $US. You seem to wish to inhabit some fictional World where when the State requires funds it can just print them. If this were true then there would be no need for taxes or borrowings. Britain cannot feed itself and it cannot live without imports and as a consequence the value of £Sterling wrt $US or Euro is important. I really do not understand how you are able to convince yourself that the national debt is a fiction created by the State in order to control the masses. You must live in Roswell.

This is the sort of rhetoric I mentioned.
All of hogwash!

Trade is exchange, we prosper, the US prospers ....... and here you are claiming what? That it is a one way transaction? That sort of contradicts your other assertion that the UK is the most prosperous Western economy. Does hypocrisy not embarrass you?
The case I made is that the UK should be able to afford the Welfare bill (which by international standards [%GDP] is modest). All talk of it not being affordable is humbug - politics.

Tigger

Nov 6 2014, 12:50 PM

With any right wing retard there is the truly frightening prospect that someone somewhere who is poorer than them might be getting something that they might not fully deserve, in their opinion of course!

From this stems rank hypocrisy and selfishness.

Affa

Nov 6 2014, 01:07 PM

Tigger

Nov 6 2014, 12:50 PM

With any right wing retard there is the truly frightening prospect that someone somewhere who is poorer than them might be getting something that they might not fully deserve, in their opinion of course!

From this stems rank hypocrisy and selfishness.

We all know someone, a friend, a relative, that despite being 'comfortability off' will always plead poverty when it comes to spending money.
This "can't afford the NHS" rhetoric is of that nature. Affordability is being confused with 'commitment', the lack off.
I'm not saying that there should not be limits, not be caution, and not be accountability. I am saying that it is politically motivated to make such assertions - that are untrue. The NHS is affordable at its present spend ..... is a lower spend than most other civilised countries are spending.

Affa

Nov 6 2014, 12:57 PM

Summary of Government Deficit reduction policy :-
Raise VAT by 2.5%
Freeze Public Sector wages below inflation.
Reduce Corporation taxes year on year.
Reduce housing benefits by introducing under occupancy penalties.
Reduce out of work and in work benefits - and have stricter entitlement criteria for disability payments.

Then latterly stimulate the housing market with cheap borrowing rates and easy deposit conditions.

Is there anyone on here that believes these are what was/is required to get the deficit down to and stop the borrowing? Anywhere near enough?

If you answered No, then you have a lot of reason to not to trust this coalition or its partners.

C-too

Nov 6 2014, 08:59 PM

Affa

Nov 6 2014, 12:57 PM

Summary of Government Deficit reduction policy :-
Raise VAT by 2.5%
Freeze Public Sector wages below inflation.
Reduce Corporation taxes year on year.
Reduce housing benefits by introducing under occupancy penalties.
Reduce out of work and in work benefits - and have stricter entitlement criteria for disability payments.

Then latterly stimulate the housing market with cheap borrowing rates and easy deposit conditions.

Is there anyone on here that believes these are what was/is required to get the deficit down to and stop the borrowing? Anywhere near enough?

If you answered No, then you have a lot of reason to not to trust this coalition or its partners.

But a short lived burst of growth was neccessary prior to the election. Even if it means we are still behind other countries in growth since 2010.

C-too

Nov 6 2014, 09:49 AM

RJD

Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM

Quote:

 

Iain Duncan Smith’s disclosure that the teething problems have been resolved and that the Universal Credits system will be rolled out across the country ahead of the election was momentous. Many critics, not just on the Left, cheerfully predicted that Mr Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms would fail. They are now irreversible, and as a result Mr Cameron’s Coalition will be able to claim a place among Britain’s great reforming governments.

Well considered the claims made in the lefty Press, bloggers and here one would think he has not a snowball in Hell's chance of achieving that objective. We will see if he meets his milestone, but he is correct in one claim and that is no future Gov. is going to unpick this system and as a consequence he will be able to claim he inflicted the reform welcomed by the vast majority, the next step for a new Gov. must be to make further inroads against those barriers to making work always a first choice.

A system that is absolute is not a system that includes justice or fairness. A typical right-wing approach that is all logic and no empathy. Fortunately future governments WILL be able to iron out many of the injustices.

C-too

Nov 6 2014, 08:59 PM

Affa

Nov 6 2014, 12:57 PM

Summary of Government Deficit reduction policy :-
Raise VAT by 2.5%
Freeze Public Sector wages below inflation.
Reduce Corporation taxes year on year.
Reduce housing benefits by introducing under occupancy penalties.
Reduce out of work and in work benefits - and have stricter entitlement criteria for disability payments.

Then latterly stimulate the housing market with cheap borrowing rates and easy deposit conditions.

Is there anyone on here that believes these are what was/is required to get the deficit down to and stop the borrowing? Anywhere near enough?

If you answered No, then you have a lot of reason to not to trust this coalition or its partners.

But a short lived burst of growth was neccessary prior to the election. Even if it means we are still behind other countries in growth since 2010.

RJD

Nov 7 2014, 05:04 PM

C-too

Nov 6 2014, 08:59 PM

Affa

Nov 6 2014, 12:57 PM

Summary of Government Deficit reduction policy :-
Raise VAT by 2.5%
Freeze Public Sector wages below inflation.
Reduce Corporation taxes year on year.
Reduce housing benefits by introducing under occupancy penalties.
Reduce out of work and in work benefits - and have stricter entitlement criteria for disability payments.

Then latterly stimulate the housing market with cheap borrowing rates and easy deposit conditions.

Is there anyone on here that believes these are what was/is required to get the deficit down to and stop the borrowing? Anywhere near enough?

If you answered No, then you have a lot of reason to not to trust this coalition or its partners.

But a short lived burst of growth was neccessary prior to the election. Even if it means we are still behind other countries in growth since 2010.

But growth without tax revenues will not solve the problem and as we all know banking on the future and not dealing with the here and now is the pie in the sky of Politicians. We will regret, many are already, not cutting out the public sector overhang within a single Parliament. It will cost us jobs, real jobs and the opportunity to do some serious rebalancing of the economy away from consumption and towards production, in particular of the manufacturing variety. The left have a very lopsided understanding of Keynsian economics, they are only interested in the spend during famine and forget the save when the good times are here. They borrowed and spent and pumped up Big Nanny during the boom years and when these came to an abrupt end they said let's borrow some more. Madness.

Steve K

Nov 6 2014, 10:07 PM

C-too

Nov 6 2014, 08:59 PM

Affa

Nov 6 2014, 12:57 PM

Summary of Government Deficit reduction policy :-
Raise VAT by 2.5%
Freeze Public Sector wages below inflation.
Reduce Corporation taxes year on year.
Reduce housing benefits by introducing under occupancy penalties.
Reduce out of work and in work benefits - and have stricter entitlement criteria for disability payments.

cut back on government projects --- i.e. investment. (ADDED AS IS REQUESTED)


Then latterly stimulate the housing market with cheap borrowing rates and easy deposit conditions.

Is there anyone on here that believes these are what was/is required to get the deficit down to and stop the borrowing? Anywhere near enough?

If you answered No, then you have a lot of reason to not to trust this coalition or its partners.

But a short lived burst of growth was neccessary prior to the election. Even if it means we are still behind other countries in growth since 2010.

Affa has also carefully omitted to mention the cut back on government projects. They were cancelling some within days of taking office.

Anyone seen any Harriers on aircraft carriers lately? Nope

Steve K

Nov 7 2014, 11:29 PM

Thank you.

"Is there anyone on here that believes these are what was/is required to get the deficit down to and stop the borrowing? Anywhere near enough?"

Yes I think they could be, a less strong statement than "I believe" but not a "No"either.

Steve K

Nov 8 2014, 12:21 AM

Unfortunately there are limits to what an electorate can accept. By 2008 we had over decades and different administrations built a structurally flawed economy that appeared for a short time to be the goose that laid golden eggs.

I can't see us ever getting back to where we seem to be doing so well but we can get back to a stable tolerable position in time by improving our trading. But to be stable it has to have real corrections to the wealth distribution and not by throwing benefits at the issue.

RJD

Nov 7 2014, 04:56 PM

C-too

Nov 6 2014, 09:49 AM

RJD

Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM

Quote:

 

Iain Duncan Smith’s disclosure that the teething problems have been resolved and that the Universal Credits system will be rolled out across the country ahead of the election was momentous. Many critics, not just on the Left, cheerfully predicted that Mr Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms would fail. They are now irreversible, and as a result Mr Cameron’s Coalition will be able to claim a place among Britain’s great reforming governments.

Well considered the claims made in the lefty Press, bloggers and here one would think he has not a snowball in Hell's chance of achieving that objective. We will see if he meets his milestone, but he is correct in one claim and that is no future Gov. is going to unpick this system and as a consequence he will be able to claim he inflicted the reform welcomed by the vast majority, the next step for a new Gov. must be to make further inroads against those barriers to making work always a first choice.

A system that is absolute is not a system that includes justice or fairness. A typical right-wing approach that is all logic and no empathy. Fortunately future governments WILL be able to iron out many of the injustices.

No objection to using relative computations I only object as these are then portrayed as being absolute by the lefty lot. Best understand what the data actually means before making rash claims, like yours about Labour lifting millions out of poverty. C2 delude yourself but please do not try and hoodwink readers here are most, well some, are informed.

Rich

Nov 8 2014, 04:59 AM

I'll use an analogy if I may Steve, imagine a Roman galley with one hundred rowers, if only half of them row then it will take twice as long to reach their destination and so it is with our economy.

RJD

Oct 31 2014, 03:05 PM

That said I believe that your assumption that there is some conspiracy to grind the Poor into the dust is pure balderdash,